How the USA Is Losing the Aviation Industry Battle
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 05. 2024
- Join the VisualPolitik community and support us on Patreon: / visualpolitik
For more than 17 years, the United States and the European Union have been engaged in a fierce commercial battle for dominance of the aviation industry... A battle that Europe seems to have won on points. Airbus is already the world's largest aircraft manufacturer. Now, however, this war has come to an end, and the question is, why? What impact has it had on the aviation industry? What cards did the various sides play? In this video we tell you all the details about a case that will not leave you indifferent.
Recommended video: BOEING'S DISASTER: What's happening with the 737 MAX • BOEING’S DISASTER: Wha...
#Boeing #Airbus #VisualPolitik
Airbus has a CEO that used to be a test flight engineer and pilot, Boeings CEO used to be an Accountant. That says it all.
This. Never worked for Boeing, but been in aviation as a pilot, mechanic and quality assurance. People who aren't in aviation get it, safety matters, people's lives are at risk, but they don't really understand the ins and outs and how much is involved to reach that level of safety.
It's the equivalent of passengers rushing me while I'm trying to fix their broken plane about to leave. Rush, rush, rush, I have to be on time! Then the second something goes wrong.. WHO WORKED ON THE PLANE?
@@cefb8923So how come Airbus still hasn’t fixed their landing gears after 20 years?
@@aycc-nbh7289 They have fixed the Problems when they come along. Landing gears needs to be sturdy enough to survive a Landing and light enough to not cost unnessary Fuel. For the nose gear faults there are several different Reason it happened, not only one. Of the 11.263 Airbus 320 only 40 were destroyed due Accidents with 1128 dead. Of the 11.600 737 build 221 were destroyed in Accidents with 5259 dead. Statistically the Airbus is a safer Aircraft, even if it tends to lose it nose gear. Better then a falling of Doorplug.
@@Elkarlo77 They could have implemented more systems to make sure that nothing like this would happen.
@@aycc-nbh7289don't forget Air France 447 and the faulty sensor tubes which was an aircraft that actually crashed itself as its onboard computers shut down its flight systems.
Boeing is a prime example of what chasing short term shareholder gains will do to a company in the long run.
Amongst many other American companies
These European Americans never learn from previous mistakes caused by GREED. Just their nature on every scale. Individual and global.
They also lost a lot of employee goodwill in Seattle and Washington State when they suddenly relocated their headquarters from Seattle to Chicago to be closer to the money-men back East. I was a student in Seattle at the time and many locals felt truly backstabbed.
The irony is that Boeing went decades without chasing these short term gains, often lead by executives that came up from the engineering side, while their great American rival McDonnel Douglas went bankrupt due to mismanagement, led by bean counter MBAs. And then in the 90s, Boeing would take over the bankrupt MD, yet not long after, those bean counter MD executives somehow manage to get themselves in charge of Boeing, and the 787 and 737 Max were developed under their watch. No wonder people say the 777 was Boeing's last great plane.
DSofE, Yes you hit the nail on the head and it is the reason why many US companies have failed. But it is a reason why the USA still remains strong and sometimes confused!
Remember too big to fail? Japan tried that in the late 1980's. Its all about knowing when to admit to failure and realizing when to walk away.
Yes I think the EU and Boeing should sit down and figure how they can work it all out. India, Brazil, Argentine, China, Philippines, Indonesia all have great aviation market potentials.
After Russia's defeat maybe Boeing or Airbus will set up a Plant in Ukraine to build poor old Russia's civilian Aircraft as they will be stuffed!
Boeing once represented American aviation industry but now its an example of corporate greed 😢
So in one way the company is more American today than it has ever been.
@@krashd you are absolutely correct
Companies like Google and Meta has overtaken old guard companies like Boeing that once represents true iconic American company.
Apple is also on the path of boeing
@@aerohkSo do you think we could see either of them buy Boeing if they’d otherwise go under? Though I’d worry that we’d be one step closer to the corporatist anarcho-capitalist dystopia that _WALL-E_ portrays at that point.
Boeing did not so much lose the race as it simply stopped running and then shot itself in the foot. Airbus plods along doing the boring things such as caring for its employees and for the safety of its passengers. It’s simple recipe for financial success has been to design and engineer the best aircraft, vertically integrate manufacturing of critical components and implement stringent quality standards during assembly. Boeing, by abandoning such principles, has handed Airbus the win.
They (Airbus) are only able to act this way because they are not publicly traded.
They (Airbus) are only able to act this way because they are not publicly traded.
They (Airbus) are only able to act this way because they are not publicly traded.
They (Airbus) are only able to act this way because they are not publicly traded.
They (Airbus) are only able to act this way because they are not publicly traded.
I recently retired from Boeing after a 40 year career. We all knew the upper management became corrupted due to short term greed and no future planning starting about 1990. There has been little coherent leadership the past 20 years. Very sad to see the drastic decline of a once great aircraft company.
I worked for a 737 NG landing gear supplier in early 90s, I thought at that time that was going to be the final variant. Never imagined the MAX fiasco and I still think it’s the aircraft that should have never been.
I am amazed you could work there 40 years ,my dad told me in terms of aerospace layoffs they are worse than Lockheed
@@RinkyRoo2021 worked as a specialized Machinist. I was laid-off once for 14 months in 2003. That was when the bean counters said we could all be out sourced that cost the company 12+ billion dollars they figured out later. It permanently ruined the moral of the entire work force.
Up until the late 90's the company CEO's would sometimes visit the various factories and give a short "hello" speech. after the 90's they never dared visit and only spoke to hand picked employees.
The saddest part is that Boeing probably could have recovered from that bad management with more time; it wouldn't have been fast or easy, but they could have done it. All that went out the window once McDonnell-Douglas acquired them.
@@Geoduck. Its also the decades of abuse stories that precede them ,I have a A and P machine shop experience etc......but because of all the stories I would be hesitant to work for them .
Boeing is a prime example of American corporatism. Short term profits over all else. Shareholder and executive compensation above safety of the public.
You seem to mix up shareholders with stakeholders, and that executives get paid with shares and bonus based on shares. Shareholders are generally invested long-term and don't want short term profits.
@@schadelharry4048 oh look an idiot. Firstly you’re playing semantic games as shareholder and stalk holder mean the same thing. They both want profits even if it’s short term. Profits are profits.
If Boeing can be outcompeted by something that European governments put together, that says a lot.
737 max disaster and later audits that found stuff like FOD in tanks should normally put aviation company out of business for a few years. It's same with culture, where people who can do actual stuff are replaced with people who can do show.
Scam after scam after scam
I'm an "Airbus fan" and have been very enthusiastic when the 380 was launched. I love aviation and airplanes. However, I feel sad about Boeing, not because I like the company but because competition is necessary to have innovation and progress.
Isn't the A380 discontinued now? Not sure if it was due to lack of orders or airports not willing to reconfigure to accommodate the massive plane.
@@bogususer2595And also its spends alot to make those
@bogususer2595 A380 is likely to make a comeback once again... Since the air travelling passengers has been increasing more and more after the covid.
You were enthusiastic about the wrong airplane - the A380 turned into the most expensive failures in the aviation industry, and the only reason Airbus survived it was they had a lot more reserves than Lockheed or MD did in the L1011/DC10 timeframe (Lockheed DID have it's military aviation part of the company to fall back on).
Competition doesn't necessarily need to come from the USA.
I wouldnt be so hard on the A-380. It is an engineering marvel, the biggest passenger plane ever built, with an almost flawless track record, and zero fatalities. The only problem it had that Airbus couldnt predict the future of air traffic, but that alone wouldnt earn them to destroy this wonderful know-how and let it disintegrate, because of one bad decision, what noone knew will be a bad decision. It could as well turn out the move that revolutionized commercial air traffic as we know it.
there are some talk to bring back the A 380
More than the aircraft itself I feel like the A380 enabled Airbus to identify and harmonize ways of working within the company.
A380 was heavily delayed for many reasons - one of them was that German and French engineers used different softwares which led to difficult compatibility and troubleshooting process (circa 2006-2008)
I’m not sure but I feel like this must have been an intense area of focus as subsequent programs such as later A380s, A350, A320neo and A330neo all went without media drama.
haha franco germans shared projects never went 100% good@@Halarue
A380 is more likely to make a comeback ❤
A380 gave Aurbus invaluable experience. It would be fair to share the cost of development with all the subsequent aircraft that were developed on the basis of tech and knowhow from the A380. Composite technology is an example. A380 used a lot of it. Hence, the learning from that must have greatly benefitted the A350 development. Boeing, on the other hand, is losing through being sloppy with safety. How embarrassing is it that parts fall off in flight, because some bolts were forgotten? A kid building LEGO wouldn't accept missing pieces in the end result. What is worse, it seems we can no longer trust the FAA. In the end, it is two different mentalities. US corruption vs. European honesty.
All of our defense contractors are grossly overpaid for their contracts, and I personally think it has a lot more to do with the fact that our politicians who award the contracts are both lobbied and allowed to own stock in said defense contractors.
and given jobs once they leave office. the legal corruption is sickening and the pentagon failed several audits in a row and can't account for 59%(iirc) of the most recent years budget
@@niclasnyberg4173 and probably a lot more!
@@TheMitchyb61 It's a legalized kickback system for the politicians and the acquisitions people in the Pentagon.
The politicians okay big spending, get back some factory in their district (good for votes) and get back some of that tax payer money in "campaign donations".
On the Pentagon side, the project managers and acquisition don't look too closely at the spending. They retire and get hired as lobbiests, since they have the connections on the inside.
The one * I put in there is that some black projects are probably funded in "accounting errors" and "cost over-runs". As well as a Raytheon's execs new mansion.
BUT SIR MY INDIA IS THE REAL SUPERPOWER 🤗🇮🇳 WE HAVE THE BEST INFRASTRUCTURE AND HIGHSPEED RAIL 🤗🇮🇳 THIS WHY IM SO LUCKY LIVE IN SUPER INDIA THE CLEANEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD 🇮🇳🤗 , WE NEVER SCAM! WE GIVE RESPECT TO ALL WOMEN THEY CAN WALK SAFELY ALONE AT NIGHT AND WE HAVE CLEAN FOOD AND TOILET EVERYWHERE 🇮🇳🤗🚽, I KNOW MANY POOR PEOPLE JEALOUS WITH SUPER RICH INDIA 🤗🇮🇳🤗🇮🇳🤗🇮🇳🤗🇮🇳🤗🇮🇳🤗🇮🇳🤗🇮🇳🤗🇮🇳
Especially the military industry. That's why USA joins war everywhere on earth.
Boeing has always been a company lead by engineers. At one point, they begun to put emphasis on stock value more than aircraft quality. At that point, they found out that Airbus was making better planes.
Fire the bean-counters, stop all offshoring, re-hire the engineers. If the stockholders complain, take Boing private. Being the best is all what counts...
Impossible, government meddling has made business non competitive in democrat states. Not to mention the meddling in running a business, bureaucrat democrats think they can run a company better then those who started it.
Amen
I can't remember when but there was another video about the fusion of Boeing and McDonald-Douglass... In short, what they said in it was that once the deal was done, the administrators of McDonald-Douglass simply took over the admin of Boeing and started to rework it the way McDonald-Douglass use to do it... in short, Boeing absorbed McDonald-Douglass, who in turn took over the culture of Boeing and re made it into another McDonald-Douglass..
In fact, only the name of Boeing remain... and we should call them McDonald-Douglass as it is probably more accurate at this point because Boeing died during the fusion.
What you suggest is socialism. Shareholders are top dogs in a capitalist market economy, not labor. Shove it with your Communist propaganda!
I rarely fly. This year I've flown 3 times, and another round trip is planned later in the summer. All these 2023 flights on American Airlines have been and will be on A321.
Only a Americans can wonder, how in earth anyone else can be better than us? I call that, shortmindness.
I worked as a software engineer at Boeing in Defense & Space (Tukwila and Kent) for 8 years, then 3 years in Commercial Aircraft in Everett, WA. In 2009/2010, I did the best work on my career in Kent, earning an across-the-board "exceeded expectations" review. At project conclusion, I got a 60 layoff warn anyway. Someone must have concluded this situation was too incongruous, and that's how I earned a transfer to my poor-fit position in Everett. My last manager in defense told me that he had communicated to H.R. that if he could get back anyone, it would be me. Very gratifying. My transfer bought me a layoff reprieve until 2013, at which point at least my pension was vested. But I remain bitter because it was not a business setback that ended my career at the company. Boeing moved key defense contracts from the Seattle area to Oklahoma City, and St. Louis. They no longer wanted to deal with SPEEA represented engineers, and they simply decided not to honor the benefits of accrued seniority of engineers such as myself. If you want to see a symbol of Boeing's decline, visit the site of the storied Kent Space Center in Kent, Washington. If I am correct, the lunar rover for the Apollo missions was made there. These days half the property has been sold off to Amazon for a warehouse, and half the buildings on the remaining Boeing property have been demolished with no apparent plans for redevelopment. Does this save on property tax? A building I worked in during 2009 is now an open field, the work for the project moved to Oklahoma.
I buy into your experience. Boeing was a profitable engineering company as I understand. Then it decided to “Maximize Shareholder Value” a la McDonald Douglas. Fire union workers. Do this “new” stuff w/o understanding how unsafe the Max was (an unintended consequence of “Maximizing Shareholder Value”). Good luck. You sure got the skills. Like lots of guys that built the “Old” Boeing. Signed, Retired P.E.
tons of developers demolish older buildings for dumb reasons like being stylistically "dated" or whatever bullshit excuse to knock it down and sell the property
I started at Boeing in 1983. I was both and engineer and a manager. Boeing acquired MD in 1996. MD had just lost in the F-22 and F-35 runoff. It also had yet to make a commercial airplane sale in years. At the time of the acquisition, MD had been mismanaged, had few promising long-term revenue opportunities, and was essentially the walking dead.
Due to an unfortunate chain of events, Harry Stonecipeher, the former CEO of McDonnell Douglas, took over the CEO position at Boeing. When Stocipher pushed the company to focus on short-term financial returns by consolidating operations and selling off Boeing assets. Surprisingly, Stonecipher put his inferior managers into key leadership positions, pushing better Boeing managers out of the company. The result management can be best described as a bunch of cronies only interested in avoiding responsibility and sustaining the useless McDonnell-Douglass operations in St. Louis.
The McDonnell-Douglas managers in St. Louis habitually attached their bogus special projects onto commercially viable Boeing-originated and managed revenue streams. Once attached, the MD staff would tax the profitable revenue streams and bombard the Boeing staff delivering the product with useless tools and managers without accountability for on-time delivery or profitability. The only things St. Louis was good at was avoiding accountability and responsibility.
It was an incredibly frustrating experience. It would be nice if the organization was simplified and the reliance on St. Louis was significantly reduced.
That's cute
I was an engineer at Boeing myself in the 80's. You summed up the situation very well.
@@mikeroll8515 That's cute too. But Boeing planes suck. Stop being American please
Thank you
@@mikeroll8515 Thank you.
But I was told only government could mess up? Capitalism is perfect!
As a pilot who has flown both Boeing and Airbus I can say attest that Boeing is losing the race badly in both quality and efficiency of their aircraft. I don’t want to see the airliner business become a monopoly but Boeing needs to seriously step up their game.
I totally agree with you~I'm still fly Boeing from 737-700/800 to 773
It is nice to hear from a pilot on this, because as a Passenger you dont notice these things. Like I have been told the Airbus A350 is better than the Boeing 787 but from a Passenger experience the feel very similar.
@@linuxman7777 Unfortunately I can’t say much about a B787 to A350 comparison. I myself have flown the B737-700/800/900 and the A320/330/340. So the only apples to apples comparison I can make is the 737 to 320 and in every respect the Airbus is superior, the main problem I think is that the cockpit design of the 737 has not changed much since the 1970’s. There are in my opinion definite design flaws that should have been rectified 40 years ago. Of course as a passenger you won’t notice a difference but in the end the passengers don’t by the aircraft. I hope Boeing steps up but I sounds like it need major changes in corporate philosophy.
@@linuxman7777 like I said,just small problem not threat to the flight safety,normally we don't tell the passengers,some of you guys could be too worry,and we don't have time to explain the whole thing~
When Boeing designed and built quality aircraft. 707, 747, 757, 767 & 737-100 thru 737 NG's.
You forgot to mention that in the 90‘s the NSA spied on Airbus and gave that Information to Boeing, airbus lost mayor sales due to this. This came out in the Echelon Skandal. Europe was very naïve on this, still is.
I have read interview with Leahy. He said that Airbus could have sold 50-100 A380 to China but US government and Boing had done all they could to prevent that. They have put great pressure on China.😡 If european goverments reacted united things could get succed with china, but again europe was naive and done nothing.
Oversimplified, they found Airbus was bribing Saudi officials, and it was reporting that which lost Airbus the sale.
0:08: ✈ The story of Airbus and its war with Boeing is a story of political competition between the United States and the European Union.
3:12: 🛫 The creation of Airbus was a result of political negotiation between European governments and aimed to compete with American aircraft manufacturers.
5:54: 💰 The trade dispute between the United States and the European Union, centered around Boeing and Airbus, was caused by Airbus receiving significant public funding, which some estimate to have a market impact of $200 billion.
9:03: 😕 The conflict between Airbus and Boeing arises from subsidies given to Airbus by European governments, which the Americans view as unfair competition.
12:49: 🚁 The US government has provided financial support to Boeing through military and aerospace contracts, while allegedly providing favorable treatment and laxity in certification.
15:09: 🛫 The trade war between Boeing and Airbus has harmed both companies and hindered the development of the aviation industry, creating an opportunity for China's COMAC.
17:56: 🛫 China's aggressive aircraft development and huge orders pose a threat to Boeing and Airbus in the key Chinese market.
20:51: ✈ The war for control of the skies and future predictions.
Recap by Tammy AI with useful time stamps =)
your amazing cyborgjesus bless you
Boeing is also heavily subsidized by the government, the US just wants to pretend it's not.
" The trade dispute between the United States and the European Union, centered around Boeing and Airbus, was caused by Airbus receiving significant public funding, which some estimate to have a market impact of $200 billion. " Are you implying Boeing never received federal and state public funding at the same level ? Are aware how US politics work, especially after the 1979 supreme court decision in FEC V "citizen United" ( aka money is speech ) ?
🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩tkx, for the time/event notes.
The value of the Chinese market is grossly overvalued. Regarding China, Boeing and Airbus have a market denial strategy that enables manufacturers to justify selling airplanes and SUPPORT below cost. Both companies would be better off if they did not sell to Chinese airlines.
Factoid: most (not all) tech companies taken over by non engineers either lose their lofty positions or outright fail. Only good solution is management which understands all of the engineering tradeoffs and chooses wisely. Also needed is a board of directors which also understand fully so they can confidently back the engineer CEO.
Hewlett Packard
Your CEO needs both engineering and economic experience. Having just any engineer is also not what you want usually
@@jan-lukas Agree.
Someone like Elon.
I think big companies need both views, technical and commercial - in a healthy balance. The true kill factor in aviation industry is IMO impatience. The life cycle of a modern airliner is currently ~50 years (the 737 is older, but should have been replaced by a clean sheet approach; the A320 is currently in its mid-30ies). That's no business for short term thinking. It takes some good communication skill to explain to investors a long term investment strategy (like it would have taken to launch a clean sheet 737 successor in 2010) - promising them a good profit sharing for the next business year is so much easier.
I can’t respect a company that fixes a mechanical problem with a software “fix” to the flight controls.
Yeah, "auto trim" which remains invisible to the pilots until it's too late and doesn't even fix the problem in the short term as the pilots automatically compensate for it. Dumbest idea ever.
@@mreese8764 can’t believe mechanical engineers allowed company to do it… they really let greed get the better of them
Couldn't agree with you more. I still don't trust the TCAS
@@hishamosman4341 You confuse MCAS with TCAS.
MCAS problem or pilot quality? Southwest had no problem flying the old max, as we safely flew for thousands of hours. FAA certified the damn thing. What role did pilot quality have in this fiasco versus criminal engineering?
american corporate culture is the problem.
I've always thought that Boeing's biggest mistakes were (1) moving its headquarters out of Seattle and (2) allowing Mcdonnall Douglas to become part of its operation.
Bing.
Go.
I would add a third mistake that everyone's already onto. And that's hiring a CEO who spends 95% of his time worrying about the stock price and glad-handing investors and media-types, and 5% thinking about the PRODUCT.
you've got that the wrong way around. The McDonnell-Douglas mind virus was acquired in 1997; the Chicago HQ move came around as a consequence.
@@linguinatorschwartz9309 Yup.
its a US company, they are well known for not caring about lives!
Boeing is increasingly becoming like McDonnell Douglas was in that they are more interested in military and space contracts and treating the commercial aircraft like an orphan. Like McD they are more interested in pleasing shareholders.
Hmmm, how did they get this way? Oh, that's right. We have Harry Stonecipher to blame. He ran McDonnell Douglas into the ground with this philosophy and after the merger with Boeing, he brought that same philosophy to Boeing. He even bragged about changing the business culture at Boeing to the way it was at McDonnell Douglas!
Well they hired the CEO of the company they bought.
It's like Toyota buying Fiat but having the Fiat CEO run Toyota.
I think there are a lot of underlying issues when it comes to engineering companies. In England a new type of shareholder emerged with Corky White and Goldsmith developing what is now generally known as "Hedge Funds," these financial vehicles were not really interested in a companies long term future, their operation was designed for a quick in and out, and creaming off a fast buck in doing so. Because of shareholder's rules they could gain control of a company once they had an arbitrary holding (say 65%), and compulsory buy out the remaining shareholder's. Once the Hedge Fund had control they generally set about asset striping it and loading the balance sheets up with loads of debt. Then after a little while they would float the new company off to a new stock market listing. Most companies then failed because they could not service their debt, but the Hedge Funds walked away with piles of Cash! Modern financing is not conducive for an engineering company, the time frame from investment to profit is too long for the greedy financier's. My view point.
and while Harry was screwing Boeing AND also another woman while being married.
He screwed up everything.
I was there when that happened and to this day I am baffled
Boeing can be interested in space contracts all they want, but they have enormous problems with those as well...
You made a small mistake: Boeing didn't lead passengers airplanes until about the early 1960s.
Before that, other companies, such as Douglas or de Havilland, were bigger. (in passenger airplanes!)
You are right and china airlines bought more planes from Airbus changing market dynamic
Also the first airliner (which introduced the modern era of high-altitude, jet-powered craft with pressurised cabins) was the Comet made by BOAC. Though if anything once it started crashing our short-lived, state-of-the-art plane became a symbol for American companies on how not to build an airliner.. 😉
@@nickngunjiri4282Because American government keep sanctioning Chinese companies.
There is more errors. Like calling Deutsche Aerospace (DASA) Deutsche Airbus
@@krashdwell seeing as metal fatigue was completely unknown at that time, BOAC and the British tax payer did all the dirty work for Boeing in terms of research and took the hit in terms of long term sales.
Every major corporation, without enough competition, goes the same way. They grow big, get complacent, are captured by a management that are there to enrich themselves not to fulfil the needs of the market, they cut corners for short term gain, and then the management, after getting their money, leave and let the carcass rot. It's happened over and over again.
You completely forget to say one thing that European Union may have given soft loan to the Airbus but in America over exaggerated defence contract was also given to the Boeing by the American government to keep the company afloat!
Boeing has a lot of workers not allowed to organize in syndicates. Try France or Germany to do that.
Boeing uses US laws to improve their fiscal tax. In Europe is called evasion and it's one of the worst crimes.
He does say it, though?
And we can see recently with all the boieng decable tghat this company will not be allowed to die. Or even slow down. They're way too important.
The C Series/A220 story is the most poignant to me. Boeing desperate to protect its stale product, exploiting its corrupt relationship with the US Federal Government, and resulting in serving a ready to fly product to Airbus.
Bonjour je suis français ce qui est arrivé au cseries de Bombardier ma vraiment fait mal au coeur.
...making airbus happy. Nice policy.
@@apogaeum4313 talk about shooting themselves in the foot
@@farhanatashiga3721 More like shooting themselves in the head.
@@apogaeum4313 Bombardier selling the Program to Airbus for one symbolic dollar was the ultimate troll move. Even knowing Boeing previous moves, it was incredibly short sighted and petty.
A well played uno reverse card
The Concorde had also been killed by the FAA by not allowing it to fly most routes. And the Bombardier Cseries was killed by Boeing lobbying for extraordinary tariffs. I think the FAA supervision failure has been the most dramatic: neither Boeing nor the FAA experienced any substantial consequences from the deaths of hundreds of people. Despite the cover ups, blaming the pilots, blaming the airlines and accusing foreign governments.
concord was not allowed to fly over land because of its noise by many counties hence Atlantic use only over water the CAA not the FAA couldn't get overfly permissions it wanted
Boeing lost a shit tonne of money due to the crashes. They got sued by the airlines, the families of the victims, they couldn't sell 737 MAX planes until the airworthiness directives were removed etc.
Concorde's biggest strength was supersonic travel, but that was also it's biggest weakness. Not being able to fly over land due to the sonic boom it would have created. It wasn't just the FAA, it was almost all regulartory bodies which didn't grant permission. And of course it was a plane developed in the late 60's with tech from that era that made it very un-economical decades later. Remember most aircrafts go through upgrades throught out their life, making them more efficient. Concorde didn't, so was stuck with an outdated very expensive plane to operate in the 80s 90s 2000.
why? like cant they reach Mach 1 but when at airliner altitude? plus low level sonic boom (1000-2000m) doesnt do that much noise@@derekmorgan9250
I love how people try to act like the Concorde didn't inherently have its issues. Blame the US! Blame the FAA! People complain about noise pollution from GA Cessna 172s taking off.. you really think people are fine with the Concorde and the sonic booms?
America: "It's unfair competition because we're doing it and we should get the advantage but because they are doing it too it's unfair!!"
True. All times yankee's philosophy
Bingo.
Every aviation company that ever existed received handouts from governments. Defence spending being an obvious example.
A350 is a cut above all! The most sophisticated and beautiful passenger aircraft ever built
Like so many things in the USA, they are beating themselves. In the end, Greed only achieves so much, It ends up destroying so much more.
LMAO!! I am not an American but the US it's the leader in technology and offering the best products. Boeing, it's a different case.
For those who wonder about the name Boeing.
"William Boeing was born in Detroit, Michigan, to Marie M. Ortmann, from Vienna, Austria, and Wilhelm Böing (1846-1890) from Hohenlimburg, Germany.[1] Wilhelm Böing emigrated to the United States in 1868.".
Very Interesting! The World is one
Glad they changed their name, I would never set foot on a plane made by a company called Boing.
@@krashdthey didn't, oe is just a different way to write ö especially on the internet. And it isn't pronounced boing either.
@@PinHeadSupliciumwtf , the way Böing is pronounced in Germany and Boeing in the USA differ still as I think you know.
Thank you for the information. And von Braun was from Germany beating Goddard to the ground.
I was on the 777 program for a few years and just wish all my friends there the best. Whatever the faults of the company, I worked with some really smart and skilled people and it made for a great work environment.
The 777 was the last well executed design.The 777X is a disaster.
Among insiders and locals, Boeing is known by its nickname: "The Lazy B". The work ethic and spirit of innovation that defined the place pre-merger gave way to a lot of people not working very hard. There's still a LOT of fat that could be cut there, but upper level management is entirely self-serving.
Boeing basically took charge fairly early in the jet era, with the 707, 727, and early 737 models.
Helped that the early Comet got such a horrible reputation it never recovered, and the competition in the US aircraft industry never really caught up to the 707 and 737.
Boeing would have kept itself firmly in the top spot had it not bought out McDonnell-Douglas. This merger infected Boeing with the short-term mentality that has undermined so many other US firms as the failed McDonnell-Douglas management became the dominant force inside Boeing, shifted the emphasis from engineering to share price performance, and resulted in their product planning and development becoming neutered.
It may or may not have kept the top spot - that is arguable.
What is not arguable is that Airbus would not now have such a commanding lead had Boeing not bought McD.
The lineage from the Concorde to the A300 is so clear, they share most of their TCAS/TAWS callouts and other audio cues, including the iconic french callout for reversing thrust during landing.
What is the French callout?
But it makes sense to reuse something that you already have and can save money.
@@todortodorov940 The moment your plane starts to insult you.
@@marsini Aaah .... because one word can be interpreted in a negative context. But the same word has other meanings.
@@todortodorov940 It has more than one, but one of the meanings is a well known meme.
@@todortodorov940 the R word
What about the A220 aka C-Series from Bombardier thats been unfairly taxed by U.S. government after Boeing saw the potential of the new plane
the Tax was Droped Delta went on to bu a lot of a220
It says a lot that Boeing made the right bet on the future of long haul travel and still fucked it up. Airbus got it badly wrong with the A380 and still come out on top.
Boeing shot itself in the foot with the various problems it has had in the last decade or so, between the Dreamliner battery fires and those two crashes because they were too cheap to install backup airspeed sensors.
Too much government meddling is a large part of the problem. Taxed to death (forced outsourcing and poor hiring). Forced diversity quotas (had to hire some real half wits to fill the quota). We never had any problems before they government thought it knew how to run a business. Thanks democrats for ruining another company.
Due to the crashes I dont fly with airlines that use boeing anymore. Here in Europe, except for Ryanair, most non-intercontinal flights are airbus from where I life.
It's actually wore. They had multiple ~~speed~~ (Edit: Angle of attack) sensors installed, but the program only listened to one!
@@m.s.3752 "If it's a Boeing, you'll be going... Straight into the ground!" - MCAS: "I will prevent any form of stall, all the way down to -6 ft"
@@m.s.3752 Boeing is in more serious trouble than the indicators show. The big selling 737 series has fewer customers, but companies such as Ryanair prefer to have a single model from a single manufacturer, because first it allows them to alter schedules and manning very quickly. It also makes maintenance easier and more cost effective. Finally a large profitable airline such as Ryanair can exercise considerable leverage on price with Boeing. The profit margin on the latest deal for three hundred Maxes is probably quite skinny. After 9/11, Michael O'Leary, seized the opportunity to buy up all the cancellations on orders from other airlines and thus saved Boeing from a major crisis. Ryanair and the others would get no such deal from Airbus, because it's order books are bulging anyway. The risk the low cost carriers are taking by depending on a single aircraft type is that if another Max style problem occurs and large numbers of aircraft are grounded they may well be unable to fly anywhere. I'm sure some very interesting conversations took place between airline bosses and Boeing on that one.
There is a saying that "Those who don't innovate litigate" and when Boeing sued to keep the Bombardier CSeries out of the US market they fell into being a company that was not nimble enough to innovate anymore. Airbus has been much better at anticipating what the market. Whether that was skill or maybe luck can be debated. Boeing has missed the market several times. Once by not doing a redesign on the 757 letting Airbus beat them with the A321 LR. They also missed with the A220 which they tried to keep out of the market when it was the Bombardier CSeries. What makes it worse is that Boeing had a plane, the 717, that was smack dab in the sweet spot for that market, but they dropped it because it wasn't originally a Boeing design. Time and again Boeing's continuing bet on the 737 frame is not winning for them.
Say that to the people that bought the A340s
@@BPiperDude A340 isn't in Airbus push to sales. The needed engines nerve came to fruition, some geared turbofan type, and fast moving market kill it, but sharing many resources with A330 lessened the burden
@@BPiperDude The A340 entered the market at a time when twin engine jet aircraft were not allowed to fly overseas since they were rated ETOPS 60 meaning the had to always be within 60 mins of an airport in case of emergency. A quad engine was allowed to fly overseas. That was the purpose of developing the A340 which hit the market in the mid 70s. Twin engine ETOPS 120 didn't happen until 1988.
@@victortaveira8271 Incorrect. The A340 was a response to the 747 for ultra long haul flights. It was thought at the time that there would never be such as thing as ETOPS out to 120 minutes. The A330 was a common design usage with 2 engines specifically for mid range over land flights not over water. The A340 was the pushed aircraft at the time. Airbus was caught off guard by the advent of the 777 and the extension of the ETOPS. Look up the history of ETOPS and "the most unlucky plane in the world" discussion for a more comprehensive bit of information.
@@scpatl4now Your implying that Airbus has always anticipated the market better. They haven't. What Airbus had was John Leahy. He was THE BEST airplanes salesman anyone has ever had. Airbus makes good products but so does Boeing. Both of them have had hits and misses on anticipating the market but the real success was that Leahy was able to Sell that product. There are several instances of both companies doing great anticipation of the market and several of them missing it
Boeing is another example of a corporation that became a cost cutting/profit oriented entity that used to engineer and build excellent planes and now engineer and assemble "products" as a means to an end. The end being "right now" profits.
Many many companies that followed that philosophy have become just another company that couldn't care less about their end users, new or down the road. Mercedes Benz is a fine example. Their cars used to be finely engineered machines that were sold at a price to allow a profit. Then, by the early 90's, the bean counters were in full control and the cars became a product. A product built to a price point. Which led to cost cutting and cheapening of what all went into the cars. Yeah, the car seemed nice to the original owner/leasee but it wasn't long before things unraveled. No biggie, the lease ended and on to the next new leased car for the leasee. As for the owner, well, they sold the car on to the next person, and we all saw what happened. S class cars on the back of flatbed trucks, dead on the side of the road, or at buy here/pay here lots. They also seemed to rust, A LOT. I clearly recall seeing 5-10yr old E and C class cars all rotted out. I'm picking on Benz, but BMW was and still is just as bad. Ford put faulty tires on their Explorers, etc etc. No one in management or executive levels has any pride in what they put out. All that matters is "RIGHT NOW" profits at the expense of long term longevity or reputation at the cost of deaths. Deaths that are calculated into their profits. Ford did exactly that in the development of the Pinto. All guilty.
Do not forget about Russian upcoming airplane called mc-21 as well as Chinese Comac aircrafts. The both are really threat for Boeing and Airbus, respectively.
Brazil too.
@@michaelashby9654 Embraer probably can make more airplanes in the future, BUT I highly doubt that they will ever get as much funding as Boeing and Airbus gets. Brazil has many economical problems. Therefore less innovation and less new products. And there are 3 things, which concern me about Comac:
1.The fact that there were passengers on their test flights last year. And pilots even did not have as much safety attire etc. on them as, for example, Airbus has.
2.The design on that plane was clearly stolen from Airbus and Boeing. Plus, allegedly, some technology too.
3. Let's be honest. How many products made in China you have that you can say that they are good quality?
The competition between Airbus and Boing isn't necessarily bad for the customers; a monopole of one of these companies would lead less development and higher prices. A trade war may be a bad thing, but the market being dominated by just a single company is worse.
Yes, but all this hundreds of billions could have gone to build a wide and efficient high speed rail network all over Europe and the USA, for a far greater benefit for generation of citizens and also humanity since the aviation industry is dooming Earth. So a lot of taxpayer money and in 20 to 30 years we will have no way of long distance transportation.
One of the big issues is people pretend to have free-trade when everyone knows we actually don't. Whether you subsidize directly or through government purchases and military contracts, it's all subsidies. Personally, I prefer we just be open about subsidies. Hey, if you want to make sure your domestic market has at least 25% marketshare and you plan to subsidize it by 5 billion a year or whatever, it's alright, just do it out in the open. Bypass all these bureaucratic games. Maybe focus on the limits of subsidies so things don't go nuts.
That's how I'd prefer it at least. Keep free-trade open so we don't miss out on innovations and competition, but allows subsidies and market share minimums.
They already hold monopolies. They just carve out certain parts of the sector like gang bosses controlling thier turf.
I agree. It's actually bad we lost Bombardier after they made the A220. Nice seeing Embraer do well though. Hope to see some of these supersonic start ups do well too.
Just wait until the Chinese with their aircraft (C919) get a footing. Boeing will be a has been if it doesn’t get it sh-t together.
One more reason Boeing is failing that they had a different control system for each range of aircraft. Airbus standardized the cockpit and controls across all their models, making it MUCH easier to maintain and train pilots. Much more attractive to customers
I'm a Boeing captain. Sometimes I do envy my Airbus colleagues who can enjoy the sidestick and the little tablet.
Yeah it looks easier but I would prefer what you have in Boeing 😃
@@deliriummtremens You mean the control column that can accidentally hit your balls when the hydraulic systems are off while you are resting on the apron?
@@kittyflier8338LMAO
Boeing was subsidized for building military aircraft. At one time the technology that was developed for military aircraft was applied to civilian industry. The technology developed to build the B52 was used to develop the 707. So in the past you are right. Indirectly the civilian aircraft industry did gain. Now that isn't true. The technology to build a military jet can not be used to build a civilian plane.
Boeing always seem to want to avoid the need for pilots to require new training - thinking that that is what customers want. But whilst that might be true in some cases, today Boeing is faced with trying to upgrade aircraft designs of the 1960s so they still fly (and are piloted) in (nearly) the same way. Airbus is prepared to introduce novelty and so benefit from new technology too.
Airbus too will eventually face the same problem if China's project becomes a success. Today Airbus has an advantage because all their wide body design are new and first generation. But Airbus cannot keep investing in clean sheet designs all the time. It's 2nd gen aircrafts would most likely use the same design of its current fleet.
@@dukhi_aatma372 Look at the landing legs length of the 737, and the ones of the A320 family. Then look at the 757...
so once again we see that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Great video, but it seems to me that you overlooked European aviation success stories like Vickers, AV Roe, Supermarine, Rolls Royce Sud Avaiton, which give Airbus a rich history of engineering and skills
Messerschmitt, Dornier ...
Until the 1960's in the US the engineering track was where the majority leadership came from in most manufacturing companies. Now business/marketing has replaced them. Another example of this leadership failure is General Motors which has dropped from 60% market share in the US to about 17%.
And then, a few days after the launch of this video, Airbus got their largest order in history
It's like comparing Toyota to any American car company. The focus was on building quality.
Best comment ever :)
Is Toyota better than American cars?
@@ajmaeenmahtab8456 I am german and germans are very proud of our germay car manufactures - but when it comes to reliability I have to say that Toyota is on a very high level.....
@@ajmaeenmahtab8456 Yes!. Cars in the same category and price range, Toyota is much better than American cars.
@@ajmaeenmahtab8456 yes,yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!!!!!!
I think Boeing should relocate their office to Seattle, and then adopt the russian method: embark all the CEOs in any new plane's maiden flight. I'm pretty sure those guys will be more interrested by safety
If this strategy worked for Mao Zedong, perhaps it may work for Boeing’s executives. Though the Soviets did try this with the Tupolev Tu-104 and they may have just been very lucky.
I am a Canadian and I am very proud of now being part of the Airbus family through the new A220 (formerly the Bombardier C-Series). I would like to hear and see more about the military solutions that Airbus can now provide, including the A400M, the C295, the A330 MRTT and of course the Eurofighter.
This happens in every tech/engineering firm that appoints non-tech/engineers into managerial/director roles
I'm not flying in a Chinese plane just yet.
It's more that Chinese domestic airlines will be flying in Chinese planes.
Go find out how many Chinese parts are in Boeing planes u idioy
Better than Boeing planes aka flying coffin
When you do, remember to take a parachute with you.
I am sure you'd feel perfectly safe in Boeing 737 max
Culture problem with Boeing, management moved from engineer dominant to MBA dominant. FAA is one of the finest regulatory authorities money can buy.
A Harvard MBA can ruin almost any company given a few years of pumping up quarterly profits.
Indian will destroy your r n d
Not mentioning Airbus' American super salesman John Leahy is a serious omission in this video. He ran circles around Boeing in the sales field from the time he was first hired at Airbus North America in 1985 until he retired in 2017. All the early sales of A320s to US based airlines were made by Leahy, and he built on that success all over the world.
I’d say it’s partly down to one key thing….metric 😂
Add in European staff get paid holiday, maternity leave paid, less
Profit driven and a work life balance…the result a happy workforce that are happy and build better quality aircraft
China will absolutely push their domestic airlines, and receiver countries of their Belt-and-Road Initiatives, to buy Comac planes. That said, the real decider is not the cost of their airplanes, but their reliability and fuel consumption, so right now, give it another few years before we know more about what the Comac can do.
The engines are the biggest challenge for China. You are right. The Chinese will rely on their domestic market and Belt and Road dependent countries. This is 20 plus foreign countries.
The west can kill the Comac overnight if they wanted to. Except the airframe and a few other parts, the C919 is entirely dependent on foreign components.
Nah no significant number of people ever heard comac outside of China. Even Japan don't make planes.
Former airline EVP, who bought our fleet from Boeing and Douglas, I am not worried about Comac at all. Why? Commercial aircraft are bought largely on the airline's trust and relationship to the airframe manufacturer.
China will rather use airbus, any way to drive wedge between US and Europe the better.
What is really obvious is that when the French & the Germans are in agreement the European Union works successfully !
Well when they agree to give the leading role to the French that is, when they don't its kind of a disaster... The problem with Germany led projects is that you have to deal with the Bundestag, France's streamlined representative system really helps getting things done.
@@redwithblackstripes you're absolutely right 👍🏻
@@redwithblackstripes You're nuts, you must be French!
I went to Airbus museum in Toulouse recently. In the written history they put on a wall, they said that the reason that Airbus was formed was the fear that American aviation industry would destroy European aviation industry. Same when I went to CERN. First thing they mentioned was how fearful European scientists were that the US were going to dominate science post-War.
@@awonoto Nonsense. The US was already dominating civil aviation after the war. If there was any chance to compete without joining, Airbus would’ve never been created.
And then the 737 max gets grounded again
The COMAC 919 has a lot of western components. For example, the cockpit avionics and flight controls are made by a US company.
That will be replaced soon with Chinese avionics
@@samstone4320 Maybe. But if China wants to certify the 919 to operate in other countries, they'll probably have an easier time if they use western avionics.
@@sjsobol1comac has such a large internal market, they may not bother getting very many other certificates.
Clickbait.
Not a word about "how the USA is losing the aviation industry battle".
This is just another Airbus fanboy that won't admit that Boeing is one of the best plane manufacturer.
@@Joe-yz3uf No! I respect Boeing and was truly interested, what hit them from inside. Going woke in engineering?
@@TV_Schleuderprogramm I meant that the guy in the original video was a Airbus fanboy.
@@Joe-yz3uf Aw, right. B. isn't falling behind a rival, sumthin is tearing apart US and Europe alike. Commi-bastards back?
@@Joe-yz3uf boeing is s garbage. sanctions on all us products soon.
Very informative video.
Of course Boeing and Airbus should do their best to compete with Comac - but for us, the end consumer, competition is a plus, as long as safety is still the primary concern.....I'm looking at you Boeing.
And for that we need strong and UNBIASED certification.
Comac is irrelevant. Embraer, Aerospatiale, etc are more reputable and produce better planes.
Comac also doesn’t have any safety record and everyone knows what safety means in China 😂
Boeing had a great reputation for quality. When you loose your good reputation, it is very hard to get it back.
Boeing was profit first before safety. That's why it's crucial to have competitors in any field of business ventures to ensure quality control/assurance of product.
It’s good for more options in the aircraft manufacturing industry, the fact that there are only two major manufacturers creates a duopoly which is good in some sense but also not good
60%+ of Comac key components are from American and European companies, only the fuselage is domestically made. Landing gear, fuel management, electronic systems and modern avionics are all imported. Comac Jets engine are made by CFM International Leap,; an American French Join venture
As it's often the case with new company making complex products.
I fully expect that number to steadily go down.
Though I wonder if Chineese will ever catch up with GE, P&W and RR in engine race
China with its unlimited and wasteful budget should build electric aircraft and be the Tesla of the air of short range aircraft, which would do the world a favor with low cost environmentally friendlier air travel.
And after all the corruption, and greed, the CEO walks away and lines, his pockets with a very large severance package, bonuses, etc..
And despite criticisms…it just gets worse and worse 😭
The 1st modern commercial airliner was the Junkers Ju52/3m(17 passengers), first flight in 1932, one year before the Boeing 247 (10 passengers).
Yes, but with a name like Junkers, you really can't expect much business in the English speaking world.
I flew on the Ju-52 in 2015. Lufthansa had one aircraft in their fleet, which was kind of a hobby project for the airline, their pilots and mechanics. The most expensive ticket I paid for 1 hour flight - but probably the best experience ever.
Unfortunately, all Ju-52 were grounded few years later world wide due to uncertainty of their structural and mechanical integrity due to their age.
It's not much better than Boeing. What do you think the father of the founder of Boeing was called? *Wilhelm Böing* When changing few letters you name your son William Boeing Jr., and people like you think: Wow! So American!
@@alexp3752 Yeaaaaaaahhh but but but but...
people do realise that English is not the *ONLY* language, so there MIGHT be (occasionally) a person whose native language is not Yew Essss EEENglish.
AND BY THE WAY, the J in "Junkers" is pronounced like a Y, so you pronounce the name "Yunkers" because it comes from the Germanic group of languages.
@@todortodorov940 replacing the dots by a e is a normal way of spelling an "umlaut" on keyboards (typewriters) that dont have that sign
so Böing = Boeing for a german
similar
Über and Ueber
schräge and schraege.
so it is not so much "american" it is a german who is in the USA and the typewriters just don't do those two dots. So he chose the alternative spelling.
Boeing was not fighting a European aircraft company, it was fighting the governments of Europe, and doing pretty well at that. What set airbus ahead is that they embraced modern avionics and cockpit automation at a time when Boeing was slow to modernize. Boeing sat back and claimed that airbus was making aircraft for less trained pilots, but that was exactly what was, in fact, going on. With countries around the world getting into aviation, pilot training was a problem. Reducing pilot workload and making the aircraft easier to fly was the killer app. Boeing, I think, turned this situation around. If it hadn't been for Airbus, boeing would have stayed decades behind. The competition has been good for everyone.
The A320 on the Hudson river is the perfect example of what to do in plane design. The onboard computer knew the best angle was 7°, and kept the plane at this angle when it water landed, causing minor damages and allowing to save everybody on board. Sully was pulling the stick hard, with a less computerised plane the angle would have been worse, plane breaking down and many casualities
This is why Boeing pulling out of the passenger market ultimately is also bad for Airbus. Competition makes for better products
@@highs_and_lows4665 China enters the chat
@@CaptainDangeaxgod forbid!!
Boeing has had the tech lead over Airbus for most of it’s existence, the all composite airframe of the 787 still blows my mind with how ahead it’s time it was.
Regarding automation, Boeing originally took the side of pilots by allowing full control over the aircraft instead of letting a computer handle flying. Have a look at Qantas flight 72 with a A330 going out of control. If it wasn’t for the skills of the pilots that thing would have crashed.
Unfortunately Boeing went big into automation with the fundamentally flawed 737 Max and are now in the worse position. Hopefully Boeing bounces back but looking at how they’ve kept their stupid management that started this mess I doubt it
Boeing has slash the Bombardier C series and had no choice to almost sale it to Airbus to become the 220-100 and 220-300. Because we do not use military contract to finance civilian aircrafts.
Boeing's CEO is a former accountant. Airbus' CEO is a former test engineer.
4:44 The fact that the scummy McDouglas board & practices took over Boeings instead of vice-versa was the start of it all. Engineering stopped being the main focus and it was all about the bottom line! 😢
Also the a380 is back baby!
In the Philippines the problem with Boeing is they became a political tool of Washington. For example Philippines is category 2 only for us to comply with purchases of US sourced security equipment and FAA approved rules which they themselves dont apply first.
Buy from Brazil. Embraer has the most quiet comfortable and reliable aircraft on its category.
Airbus is a consortium of aircraft makers, some of whome are OLDER than Boeing. Calling it a "new" maker is misleading
Cannot comprehends how much bonuses and money those Boeing executives get in the past decades, compared with the state of the company and reputation of Boeing today.
Boeing's betrayal of public trust for safety and cutting corners in the case of the B737 Max.
I think the main problem is that Boeing along with many other companies are run by bean counters or economists. The problem with the leadership having no idea about how what the company actually does works is that all they can do is follow what ever subordinate that makes the best argument, which often have more to do with argumentative skills then what is actually the best. Note how several of the richest people are company owners who actually had some technical or science background like Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Howard Hughes etc. The later is rather relevant for aircraft industry.
It's a bit like the US in the late 40s, they were the only country to come out of WWII unscathed and fully intact. They started to supply the world with the goods other countries could not make because their infrastructure was destroyed, the USA had everything its own way until the other countries started to rebuild in the 50s. When that happened and the competition began the US started to drop back and lose ground. Apart from the British, the USA had the aviation industry to itself, then along came Airbus and whatever the reason the bottom slowly dropped out for Boeing.
I am waiting for a video about financial support for Boeing, as well as how the US government helped Boeing in the fight against Bombardier’s new aircraft. There are so many words in your video about EU financial support and there are no examples of the US government doing exactly the same things.
This video has bad pacing, it is all over the place
How do companies keep getting blindsided in China by a government sponsored competitor?
This has already happened in multiple sectors time and again. The leaders of these companies must be goldfish with particularly bad memory's
I'm not sure what you mean. What does china have to do with this video?
@@Konstantinos1648 the reason they stopped the trade war is so they can stop the new Chinese competition. This is a competition for power over the industry and every one is playing dirty
@@Konstantinos1648 16:46
@@Konstantinos1648 Copying the A-320 shamelessly u mor_n.
Exactly. They'll be allowed their production lines in China until the CCP feels it has absorbed enough of their know how. China is command economy, they're not competing in a market anymore as soon as the communist party decides that all chinese airlines are going to buy chinese planes.
When I was studying systems engineering at university back in the 1990s, one of the main areas of study was how successful US government money and civilian/military collaboration had worked in the development of mixed use military/civilian large aircraft development programmes from the Boeing 707 onward. It was held up as an example of excellent state/private industry/civilian/military collaboration.
The 707 was the basis for a great many military aircraft variants but this Federal state aid gave Boeing a huge advantage in the civilian airliner market at that time. It literally undercut and ended all international competition in the sector, despite the fact that the Boeing 707 wasn't the first jet airliner and until then didn't particularly have a great technological lead over anybody else. The huge domestic US market and incentives given to US airlines saw Boeing fly away, quite literally, with the global airline market for the next 3 decades. It virtually became a monopoly.
And that's on top of all the other military projects referred to in this video.
737 is the BIGGEST set back for Boeing and will ALWAYS be remembered as the plane that killed.
That is not the whole story…. Standardization has reduced the costs to be so much more competitive
Thank you for taking a balanced approach
Started after the merger with McDonnell/ Douglas. The culture went from the Boeing engineer culture, to the McDonnell/Douglas ,MBA’s stockholder share culture. Then began the floundering.
you can thank their ceo stonecipher for that
That's why the best sentence Werner von Siemens, founder of the Siemens company in Germany, said was:
"I don't sell the future for a short-term revenue".
And that's why the company does great until today. Could be a good role-model for Boeing.
@@d1p70 I am very aware of that guy.
Good video. You forgot to mention Embraer, it’s affair with Boeing, the divorce, and now the rebirth of Embraer with 250 panes sold just this year and it’s plan for their first widebody.
@@donmab Brazil has excellent University courses on aeronautical engineering in the São Paulo State.
As a designer of Boeing aircraft, and having managed projects there. I will state without subsidy there is only room for one large aircraft manufacturer worldwide. The development expense does not allow more than one large aircraft manufacturer. To avoid the problem of one country dictating the internal politics of another the current subsidy structure in the aircraft manufacturing business necessary. Further I would suggest that recent events would suggest the subsidy of a European oil and gas industry as part of making a transition to other technologies. Consider this as a reasonable stepping stone to a more secure future for us all.
Note that you, being an engineer according to your statement, use only an economic argument. Strange.
@@henrikibjensen3869 My degrees are not in Engineering, but Physics, Mathematics and Economics. I worked in design that was not an established, but a relatively new field. I managed projects , including parts of the bidding process as well have taught at the college level. The size and scope of large scale engineering design has room for only a very few players.
Reason is simple: If you can get a deal on AUDI, why would anyone go for a Ford.
BOEINGS first mistake was merging with the troubled McDonald Douglas
The 919 uses many western parts. The Chinese parts are simply the metal can and wings. The supply of parts can be suspended, or any new tech can be restricted.
Yeah Free market when it pleases the USA. Good grief.
Propaganda at its best , keep trying
@@deliriummtremens If China made these components it would take years to certify in different countries around the world. China wants to sell this aircraft overseas. No buyer would touch the aircraft without well tested and years of proven technology. The Russians failed to establish a credible commercial aircraft for the same reasons. I suggest you get your facts right before making delerious comments.
Engines - CFM Leap1
Fire detection- Kidde
Engine Thrust reverse French Aircelle
Flight control system Parker Aerospace
Flight recorder GE
Wing anti icing Liebherr
APU Honeywell
Fuel System Parker aerospace
Landing Gear Honeywell
Tires Michelin
Weather Radar Rockwell Collins
I'll swim across the ocean before I fly in a plane made from China. It'll probably be safer to swim anyway.
Many airbus airplanes are actually assembled in China for many years. So yes maybe one of the planes you have taken was made in China. SHOCK! 😂
@@jaysong2890 Boeing assembles it's planes in two states, Washington state and California. Nice try.
@@taylor_drift1 Also in Charleston SC
@@taylor_drift1 no wonder Boeing planes are called flying coffins
@Jay Song those are for Chinese market. Assembly is not manufacturing.
The landscape would change even further with the entry of COMAC 919
Boeing and Airbus receiving unfair advantages: 'Heh heh heh.'
China doing the same thing
Boeing and Airbus: 'Unfair!'
Airbus is winning the race simply because they are more trustworthy and make better aircraft.
Fun fact, C919 is already in its commercial operation, you can even buy tickets online now. Though it's domestic airline.
Guess how Boeing react to it: not trying to build a better, more competitive model but trying to persuade the US government to ban COMAC😂
Yes but C919 is only certified in China (and some African countries that do not really care so much about security as EU/USA). Also C919 is 85% built with western part and thus entirely dependent on the West (motor are from France, landing gears too, etc.)
@@ploppataplon2721 I can assure you that C919 is as safe, if not safer than 737max. For me, if I've got the chance, I'd rather fly a C919.
@@kittyflier8338 Of course it is safe since almost all the aircraft is "western" made :) :) Motors/Motor supports are French (Safran), APU/Radar/Cockpit/Flight Recorders/Crane/Doors/Tires are USA, Fire/Extinguisher from UK, the only thing truly "made in CHINA" is some part of the fuselage (about 40%). \o/ C919 is the best ..... god..... first thanks all foreigners partners and then come back to me, would you?
(And I exclude the indoor stuff since it is at the airline discretion to decide what they want in it, we only talk about the "nude airline")
I swear to god this video could have been 12 minutes if you wouldn't repeat yourself all the time and would actually get to the point.
You cannot always be on top. That's the beauty of having competition. The days of Boeing being the number-one aircraft manufacturer are near its end. They need to double their efforts in making products safe to fly. Otherwise, Airbus will eat them all alive!
_Don't you feel the comet exploding?_ - Paul McCartney & Wings