6 ms·

Boeing engineers should leave and start their own company. "American dynamism" is hot right now and there should be ample funding available. Lots of the old di

Boeing engineers should leave and start their own company. "American dynamism" is hot right now and there should be ample funding available. Lots of the old dinosaurs are being nipped at by nimble upstarts like Anduril.

fragmede 2y ago
Have you seen how much lambasting Boom Aerospace gets every time they come up? Starting a new aerospace company isn't for the faint of heart!
- sealeck 2y ago
  I agree but not because "boohoo people aren't nice enough to us" – because it's a tough market to break into with (justifiably) high regulatory scrutiny, high R&D costs and few investors who know what they are doing. It's very natural that any company be subject to scrutiny – this doesn't mean that you shouldn't set up a company or that the environment for setting up a company isn't favourable.
- GuB-42 2y ago
  Well, Boom is not any aerospace company, they want to make supersonic planes. Supersonic travel is expensive and environmentally unfriendly, and it will probably always be, because it requires more energy, because physics. All that for the minor advantage of saving a couple of hours on select flights. What it means is that it is a privilege for the wealthy (because it is expensive for what you get), at the expense of everyone else (because of the environment). So of course it is going to be unpopular, except to the wealthy in question. It doesn't mean Boom can't be successful because the public opinion is negative, if the rich can pay. I am still not convinced though, after all, Concorde didn't fail technically (and it still flew after that one accident), it failed commercially. Boom is not taking the easy path here, since it is a technically hard problem with a dubious market.
  - beaned 2y ago
    I think that take is a little cynical. If it's only for the rich then the prices will be high. Meaning the capitalist mechanism of resource distribution will be even higher (more paid by the rich received as income by the non-rich). It will also take demand from existing airlines making fares lighter for everyone else. It also employs people. It also drives technology forward. And ultimately it does let people travel in less time, and why wouldn't we want that? To some extent emissions are not as bad as you'd think since they are being emitted over less time in the course of a shorter journey. Success in this category will also drive competition in every metric and work to bring cleaner, shorter flights to everyone over time. There is a lot to love about the idea of supersonic flight.
    - AlexandrB 2y ago
      > It will also take demand from existing airlines making fares lighter for everyone else. That's not how airline economics work. The first class passengers (the ones who could afford to leave for supersonic) subsidize the economy seats[1]. If they left you would probably see worse prices, worse amenities or both. There are airlines that don't have business or first class seats (e.g. Spirit), and they're generally a terrible experience. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-class-vs-coach-a-game-of-square-inches-11556098201 https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-class-vs-coach-a-game-of-...
      - beaned 2y ago
        On the other hand demand for premium seats would be down, lowering their price and making a nicer ride more accessible. Overall this would net to lower prices for the same distribution of amenities on a given plane ride. Supply and demand theory would seem to suggest that equal supply with lower demand leads to lower prices overall. Supply could of course adjust as more people move to supersonic, but that means more people are now getting a better product than before. And if supply of regular jets remains (they're pretty expensive to just have sit there and not try to use for income), lower-end fares and seat availability invite people at the lower end of the resource spectrum to now buy more plane tickets.
    - 2y ago
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > much lambasting Boom Aerospace gets If Boom wants respect, they should merge with Sergey Brin's LTA Research. Supersonic airships are the future's future.
  - orbisvicis 2y ago
    Supersonic dirigibles? Isn't that an oxymoron?
- tjpnz 2y ago
  They're an aerospace company? It seems I've been confusing them for a lobby group trying to remove urban noise regulations.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    See what I mean?
Maken 2y ago
I seriously wonder how long it would take for a team of engineers to produce a competitive commercial airplane, from planning to the first prototype, if they started right now. Also, is it viable to produce something like the A320 in low quantities when airlines need fleets in the hundreds?
- badpun 2y ago
  I remember reading that one engineer spent 6 years designing „ventilation for seats 40-80” on one of the larger Airbuses. It seems like the amount of design and engineering work required for a prototype of a complete aircraft (assuming you buy the engines) is just immense.
  - kevindamm 2y ago
    How much of that time was actual engineering-tradeoff decision-making and how much of that was working in a large corporation with abundant communication overhead?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - badpun 2y ago
      I'm betting a lot of that is reviews, approval, documentation, testing, re-testing etc - but it may be required for building a safe aircraft, and for getting it licenced to fly.
    - seabird 2y ago
      For a safety critical system, the work documenting, explaining, testing, validating, etc. a decision outstrips the work it took to make the decision. It is that way for a very good reason. The problem with it requiring so much work and time isn't that there's BigCorp bureaucracy that needs disrupting, it's that there isn't a problem with the amount of work and time required.
      - 2y ago
zooq_ai 2y ago
Engineers always over value their ability to start companies on their own. There is a lot to building a successful company and needs irrationality and risk-taking (not exactly traits of a median engineer). Engineers like Musk, Zuck, Gates are outliers than the norm. If you are a Boeing Engineer and had above average risk-appetite, you wouldn't be stuck in Boeing for 10+ years.

fragmede 2y ago

Have you seen how much lambasting Boom Aerospace gets every time they come up? Starting a new aerospace company isn't for the faint of heart!

sealeck 2y ago
I agree but not because "boohoo people aren't nice enough to us" – because it's a tough market to break into with (justifiably) high regulatory scrutiny, high R&D costs and few investors who know what they are doing. It's very natural that any company be subject to scrutiny – this doesn't mean that you shouldn't set up a company or that the environment for setting up a company isn't favourable.
GuB-42 2y ago
Well, Boom is not any aerospace company, they want to make supersonic planes. Supersonic travel is expensive and environmentally unfriendly, and it will probably always be, because it requires more energy, because physics. All that for the minor advantage of saving a couple of hours on select flights. What it means is that it is a privilege for the wealthy (because it is expensive for what you get), at the expense of everyone else (because of the environment). So of course it is going to be unpopular, except to the wealthy in question. It doesn't mean Boom can't be successful because the public opinion is negative, if the rich can pay. I am still not convinced though, after all, Concorde didn't fail technically (and it still flew after that one accident), it failed commercially. Boom is not taking the easy path here, since it is a technically hard problem with a dubious market.
- beaned 2y ago
  I think that take is a little cynical. If it's only for the rich then the prices will be high. Meaning the capitalist mechanism of resource distribution will be even higher (more paid by the rich received as income by the non-rich). It will also take demand from existing airlines making fares lighter for everyone else. It also employs people. It also drives technology forward. And ultimately it does let people travel in less time, and why wouldn't we want that? To some extent emissions are not as bad as you'd think since they are being emitted over less time in the course of a shorter journey. Success in this category will also drive competition in every metric and work to bring cleaner, shorter flights to everyone over time. There is a lot to love about the idea of supersonic flight.
  - AlexandrB 2y ago
    > It will also take demand from existing airlines making fares lighter for everyone else. That's not how airline economics work. The first class passengers (the ones who could afford to leave for supersonic) subsidize the economy seats[1]. If they left you would probably see worse prices, worse amenities or both. There are airlines that don't have business or first class seats (e.g. Spirit), and they're generally a terrible experience. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-class-vs-coach-a-game-of-square-inches-11556098201 https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-class-vs-coach-a-game-of-...
    - beaned 2y ago
      On the other hand demand for premium seats would be down, lowering their price and making a nicer ride more accessible. Overall this would net to lower prices for the same distribution of amenities on a given plane ride. Supply and demand theory would seem to suggest that equal supply with lower demand leads to lower prices overall. Supply could of course adjust as more people move to supersonic, but that means more people are now getting a better product than before. And if supply of regular jets remains (they're pretty expensive to just have sit there and not try to use for income), lower-end fares and seat availability invite people at the lower end of the resource spectrum to now buy more plane tickets.
  - 2y ago
WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> much lambasting Boom Aerospace gets If Boom wants respect, they should merge with Sergey Brin's LTA Research. Supersonic airships are the future's future.
- orbisvicis 2y ago
  Supersonic dirigibles? Isn't that an oxymoron?
tjpnz 2y ago
They're an aerospace company? It seems I've been confusing them for a lobby group trying to remove urban noise regulations.
- fragmede 2y ago
  See what I mean?

Maken 2y ago

I seriously wonder how long it would take for a team of engineers to produce a competitive commercial airplane, from planning to the first prototype, if they started right now. Also, is it viable to produce something like the A320 in low quantities when airlines need fleets in the hundreds?

badpun 2y ago
I remember reading that one engineer spent 6 years designing „ventilation for seats 40-80” on one of the larger Airbuses. It seems like the amount of design and engineering work required for a prototype of a complete aircraft (assuming you buy the engines) is just immense.
- kevindamm 2y ago
  How much of that time was actual engineering-tradeoff decision-making and how much of that was working in a large corporation with abundant communication overhead?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - badpun 2y ago
    I'm betting a lot of that is reviews, approval, documentation, testing, re-testing etc - but it may be required for building a safe aircraft, and for getting it licenced to fly.
  - seabird 2y ago
    For a safety critical system, the work documenting, explaining, testing, validating, etc. a decision outstrips the work it took to make the decision. It is that way for a very good reason. The problem with it requiring so much work and time isn't that there's BigCorp bureaucracy that needs disrupting, it's that there isn't a problem with the amount of work and time required.
    - 2y ago

zooq_ai 2y ago

Engineers always over value their ability to start companies on their own. There is a lot to building a successful company and needs irrationality and risk-taking (not exactly traits of a median engineer). Engineers like Musk, Zuck, Gates are outliers than the norm. If you are a Boeing Engineer and had above average risk-appetite, you wouldn't be stuck in Boeing for 10+ years.