[maxglute]

Industrially boeing / airbus are 100k large companies, i.e. need 300m+ base country size (or in EU case, block size) to support specialized workforce large enough for modern commercial aviation. Economically, fuel costs, i.e. engine maturity makes any entrant that's doesn't have parity engine core tech automatically none viable because simply higher costs due to lifetime fuel costs. (Geo)politically, there's lots of certification / safety drama that incumbents like US/EU will throw to undermine competitors so really also matter of geopolitical power - i.e. apart from engines, PRC COMAC using western components mostly for easier certification, they have large enough internal market to sustain development against economics. Almost no one else has those conditions, except India but they don't have industrial base.

Since topic is tankers, PRC/RU has their own tankers, i.e. for military aviation it's not strictly as difficult since fuel cost less issue. But for strategic aviation (transport/tanking) big efficiency working with commercial chassis / turbofan efficiency.

[wolvoleo]

> Economically, fuel costs, i.e. engine maturity makes any entrant that's doesn't have parity engine core tech automatically none viable because simply higher costs due to lifetime fuel costs.

Neither Boeing nor Airbus make their own engines. They get them from CFM, GE, Rolls-Royce. Like everyone else. That's not the differentiator.

But it just costs insanely much to get an airliner certified. Even Boeing has been held back by its clients demanding a shared type certificate for the 737max which caused all those deaths due to mcas.

There were of course more players but they've been bought up. And some emerging brands that are excluded from our markets due to sanctions like the Chinese Comac and the Sukhoi Superjet. The superjet is particularly affected because some of its systems were designed by western companies like Honeywell and they've had to make last-minute replacements after the Ukraine war that didn't exactly work out well.

And there's some other players. Embraer is creeping closer to the 737/A320 market.

But anyway so it isn't just Airbus and Boeing really.

[maxglute]

>That's not the differentiator.

It's differentiator in sense engine manufactures are part of western aviation industrial complex and can limit access, i.e. COMAC sanctions. Unless you're western core, you do not have guaranteed access. I think Embraer is creeping on to bottom end of narrowbody, but they're far from wide body. And with respect to topic, modern strategic tanking are wide body size, i.e. Embraer E190 is not same heavy league as KC46, MRTT, Y20, Il-78, and Embraer has not demonstrated ability to go beyond regional narrowbody. Fielded widebody options is really just Airbus/Boeing duopoly, AVIC/Xi'an, UAC stumbling along from legacy USSR stack.

[wolvoleo]

I travelled on an E195 recently and I have to say it was much more comfortable than any 737 or 320/321 I've been on. Unlike other regionals I've travelled on in the past which were noisy, cramped and bumpy.

Their squircle fuselage works out really well. Really next-gen which makes sense because the Boeing and Airbus designs are decades old. I think they certainly have the chops to scale it up that bit to reach regular narrow body. But I imagine they just don't want to because that might mean trade sanctions from the US.

But I think the restrictions are more artificial/protectionist than actual knowledge. I'm sure sooner rather than later we'll have comacs flying in Europe. The Russian ones depend really on whether they resolve the war situation.

[badosu]

There are indications Embraer might announce a new aircraft at the next Farnborough Airshow, fingers crossed!

[numpad0]

Boeing spun off United Airlines and P&W for antitrust reasons... Spirit AeroSystems that makes Boeing fuselages as products is likewise a spinoff.