In the end, SpaceX is America’s only reliable way to get to space. It’s great that it’s also cheap considering that. Boeing is, as usual: cheap, fast, good; pick none.
It's fair to say that Boeing's status within their industries enabled them to slide down the slippery slope of quality and reliability. SpaceX does seem to become more dominant over time.
But to actually go down that path also requires a culture of management by non-engineers (MBAs have a bad rep for a reason). SpaceX, at least for now, has a strong engineering culture and does not seem at risk of becoming one.
In other words, status is necessary but not sufficient for enshittification.
I don't see many incentives in the current American corporate culture to keep a company leading in technical proficiency to maintain that status after they acquire the market they are looking for.
All the incentives are tilted over financial engineering rather than actual product/hard engineering, after the initial lift-off from technical prowess there's very little embedded in the capital system to keep that corporate culture instead of derailing it into financial juggling.
Boeing was involved with the Saturn V. The only vehicle to take humans beyond LEO, decades before I was even born. No excuses for rockets that don't work in this day and age. I say good luck to SpaceX matching that record.
BTW, I'm not defending Boeing, more just some spacex hate :p
> No excuses for rockets that don't work in this day and age.
Please point out the rocket that has a perfect record. Saturn V had failures too FYI. Besides, cost and global politics are at play as well. Musk and Putin are indeed the only options but Musk is American and also cheaper ($2,720/kg) than Putin's ($4,320/kg)[1].
When SpaceX gets the same status then Boeing they will become similar in quality.