[bbor]

This isn’t a “hype cycle”, Boeing has very publicly abandoned their engineering culture in favor of stock buybacks ever since the McDonnell-Douglas merger. It’s not hidden at all, and we have countless whistleblower employees, undercover investigations, and the obvious fiscal facts (eg they planned to spend half as much on the MAX as they originally thought it would take).

Plus this isn’t exactly a huge industry, and I don’t recall airbus having these problems. Probably because “spend the normal amount of money on engineering” is about the easiest decision a company could ever make - the most obvious, no-shit-Sherlock board room decision possible for building the long-term value of a company.

IMO sometimes things are simple, and sometimes the rich and powerful are blinded by short-term greed.

[mym1990]

How do you suppose a half a trillion dollar market is not a "huge industry"? I am definitely aware of the cultural issues at Boeing, but boiling it down to "sometimes things are simple" is just a lot of ignorance on your part.

[bbor]

I just meant that there are only two companies in the industry at all - the industry being “commercial passenger flight”, or what they seem to call “airliners” (?):

  Still, in the large commercial aircraft market, there are just two major players: the U.S.-based Boeing (BA) and the Airbus Group (EADSY), formerly known as the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS). 

I totally understand your pushback against some kid on HN thinking he knows better than the Boeing board, but I stick by the simplicity comment. I know little about airplanes but I know a lot about engineering and common sense. My point is this: R&D is vital to the long term success of an aerospace company, and suddenly slashing R&D budgets while expecting a similar amount of output is an obvious cause of safety incidents.

[nradov]

That depends on how you define the market. Boeing and Airbus are the only two manufacturers of large civil airliners on the worldwide market. But there is a second tier including Bombardier, Embraer, Comac, Mitsubishi, and UAC which either manufacture smaller (regional) airliners or have more limited sales options.

[sofixa]

> Bombardier

Protectionism bullshit by Boeing forced them to sell to Airbus, they only do business jets now.

> Embraer

Regional jets only. They saw what happened with Bombardier and they're highly unlikely to move upmarket in short haul jets.

> Mitsubishi

Cancelled their regional jet, so nothing.

> UAC

Severely hampered by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the resulting supply chain collapse and sanctions. The MC-21 and SSJ-100 were decent planes on paper, but cannot be manufactured because critical components are European or American (like the engines). The Tu-214 is back in production but it's a pretty obsolete plane by modern standards.

> Comac

By most accounts, roughly a decade behind equivalent Airbus planes in terms of efficiency, but realistically the only real alternative to Boeing/Airbus in the medium term.

[mym1990]

I don't think defining the size of a market based on how many companies are in it is a very useful metric. If you kept reading your investopedia snippet, you would see that "The airplane manufacturing market is part of the overall airline industry". So saying that "there are only two companies in the industry" is incredibly disingenuous, there are thousands of companies involved in commercial passenger flight.

Btw, people bragging about having lots of common sense are usually the ones that have the least of it.

[bbor]

Ok cmon be nice it’s hacker news we all hate Boeing here - that’s why we’re Hackers :)

Yeah it’s relative and the line between “large airliners” and “all passenger aircraft” is somewhat arbitrary, I agree. But I stand by the distinction. The market for large airliners is by far the most important market in aerospace, and it has two companies in it, and the one that’s been doing a decade of record cost cutting has way more safety issues than the company that didn’t. I’d love a higher sample size ofc, but as far as clarity goes that’s pretty damning.

Plus what are we fighting about? Whether it’s fair to describe Boeing as being in “not a huge industry”? I mean I’ll just give that one to you lol, I care little about the exact phrasing of that comment. Honestly if it bothers you just drop the whole paragraph!

Big industry or small, I have been informed by trustworthy journalists that this is not usual behavior for an aerospace company. Much less normal for an aerospace company that used to be prestigious for its engineering excellence…

[mym1990]

My point is more that: the engines are built by a different company, the tickets are sold by different companies, the airports are run by different companies. I am not making a distinction between large aircraft and medium aircraft, I am saying that Boeing is cog in a much larger wheel, and market dynamics dictate much more than meets the eye. As I mentioned, I am not on Boeing's side and the cost cutting is obviously having impacts. We are arguing about the idea that you think it is a simple fix and common sense fix, and I promise you it isn't. But if I am wrong, I guess I hope to see you in the boardroom soon!

[bbor]

Fair enough, thanks for the tit-for-that :). I keep emailing Biden telling him to nationalize the company and put me in charge, but so far no luck…