[nikhizzle]

I’m really sorry you got voted down for this prescient comment. It is spot on that in times of societal distress we often lose progress and knowledge that was obtained before, often on purpose.

Think of the dark ages, or many of the populist revolutions of the 20th century (I personally am not for/against populism, but like other ideologies it holds many dangers when applied badly).

[wonderwonder]

They got downvoted because the statement has nothing to do with the article. The CEO of boeing said nothing about Boeing, an airline manufacturer going bankrupt. He said that a carrier / airline could go bankrupt. If that happens all it means is that someone else comes along, buys all the assets and re-opens with much reduced costs, probably at a smaller scale for a while.

[greatgib]

It is probably half true. Yes the article and facts are that it is some Airlines that could go bankrupt. And i guess that Boeing still have a lot of cash reserves. But, Airlines (ie clients) Bankruptcy could lead to very bad cascading effects on Boeing. Including its own Bankruptcy on a longer term. But certainly the US would not let that happen I suppose.

[ehnto]

Though the leading statement is obviously a stretch, HN is all about curiosity and interesting questions. The CEO wanting a bailout is boring. Thinking about the nature of knowledge sharing in these kinds of industries is pretty interesting!

[lidHanteyk]

Thank you for explaining why you downvoted. Allow me to reply with the following observation: Boeing depends on airlines. Or, at least, Boeing's commercial division depends on airlines. A future where Boeing's commercial arm is shuttered and its defense works folded into a single entity would be congruent with my original post; there would be a grand reduction in air travel.

Boeing's biggest commercial customer, as I understand it, is Southwest, who owns about 5% of all Boeings in the air [0][1]. Thus, sure, Boeing doesn't need any one particular airline, but they certainly do need somebody to buy their planes, and each individual airline which cannot stay aloft is a potential lost customer.

Because planes are so expensive to manufacture, Boeing and Airbus typically take orders for aircraft in advance, presumably along with payment, in exchange for a hefty discount of over half off the advertised price [2]. Additionally, they take too many orders, expecting that they are overbooked on plane orders and some will be canceled [2]. This sort of accounting works well in times of trouble, as long as the system returns quickly to normal following the initial shock. For example, after 9/11, air traffic resumed after a week [3] and there was only about a 30% reduction in air travel, which lasted for about a year [4]. However, if there is a months-long depression in air traffic, then the reduction will be more severe; it's been about 45% to 90% reduced around the Pacific Rim [1] and could get worse.

Eventually, too many orders get cancelled, and production has to scale back, and once production starts diminishing, it's hard to regain capacity. The original article quotes the CEO as saying that it could be 3 years until we get back to prior levels of air travel; that is a long time for airlines to hold out, and a long time for Boeing and Airbus to keep getting orders.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_fleet#Curre...

[1] Read my cousin reply.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closings_and_cancellations_fol...

[4] https://web.mit.edu/airlines/conferences/DC-2002_documents/0...