[ragebol]

I'd expect the competition for these companies to come in not from someone using the same technology, but a different technology that serves the same purpose. Eg. what happened to Kodak and Nokia.

For jet engines, the only thing that comes to mind is electric aircraft. No single-crystal turbine blades needed at all.

I may have picked a bad example, but the principle stands.

EDIT: China has an extensive high-speed rail network. While those don't quite cover intercontinental flight, it is the sort of paradigm shift I mean.

[notahacker]

The problem with fully electric airliners is physics: to achieve useful range you either need batteries with energy density that seems unfeasible or some sort of power beaming infrastructure which has its own set of enormous challenges. So if Western turbofan manufacturers' moat lasts until electric aviation is ubiquitous, they can be very, very happy.

(Now sure, you can substitute electric aircraft with open rotor jet engines which require different institutional knowledge to modern high bypass turbofans, but they're still really sensitive to how the blades are manufactured)

[ragebol]

> I may have picked a bad example, but the principle stands.

I know electric aircraft are not quite feasible on the same scale as airlines.

On the other hand, China has an extensive high-speed rail network for inland travel. OI have no idea how often the Chine fly inside the country vs how often they use aircraft, but this is the sort of different technology for the same purpose I mean.

[restalis]

"For jet engines, the only thing that comes to mind is electric aircraft. No single-crystal turbine blades needed at all. I may have picked a bad example, but the principle stands."

I understand the idea you wanted to convey and that commenting on the technical detail is not something we're supposed to do, but the technical side of your example is just too glaring to ignore. A people-carrying aircraft, be it of electric propulsion, or of other type, is heavy. Like, several tons (at minimum) heavy. To acquire the necessary portance, the aircraft has to be accelerated (on its inert wheels) on the runway up to the take-off speed and then to be able to hold the cruising speed, using engines capable of generating such thrust by only moving the air. That's a lot of force right there, and the engine that has to do this, will have to be pretty tough. Regardless of the fact that the source of the on-board energy is electric or not, that same air will have to be moved, somehow, at the needed speeds, and it will be by an engine that will look and work pretty much the same way the current jet engines do, since the shape is dictated by the aerodynamics and the internal design is given by the (air) fluid dynamics it has to work with. The single-crystal turbine blades are just an optimization. Weaker (regular fine-grained casting) materials can be used, but that will mean limiting the performance to lower tolerance levels (and most likely be heavier as well, to compensate for the lower mechanical strength).

[Merad]

Serious electric aircraft are really gated behind major advancements in battery technology or some alternative power storage tech. The energy density of batteries is an order of magnitude less than fossil fuels, and you have to carry the heavy batteries with you the entire trip (vs burning off fuel as you fly).

[restalis]

"The energy density of batteries is an order of magnitude less than fossil fuels, and you have to carry the heavy batteries with you the entire trip (vs burning off fuel as you fly)."

It's even worse. Nowadays, in order to land, the aircraft needs to be almost empty, otherwise the mechanical structure that supports the stress of impact with the runway may break. So, heavier (as with batteries included) aircraft landing will mean the need to design sturdier landing gear, and stronger landing gear will most likely mean heavier materials as well.