>Its bad when an industry dominated by two players has one of those players hurt and the market can't replace them.

it is the best opportunity for a new maker to emerge and shake, if not break, the duopoly. Boeing for the years ahead wouldn't have a plane to replace 737 MAX while the market will be squeezed by Airbus.

Ask Lockheed Martin how that went :)

I'm not that familiar with the story here, and simple googling brings that https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar and it doesn't sound that bad.

It went great, expect where they totally missed sales targets and shuttered the program. The TriStar was a great plane. It should've done better.

There's quite a few competitors in the narrow body space like the 737: Airbus, Bombadier, Embraer, Irkut, COMAC, etc. The lack of competition is in wide body aircraft (With Airbus and Boeing being the only players although there will be the Craic at some point in the next couple of years).

> Bombadier

If you're refering to the C series, that's now essentially a product provided by Airbus (under the A220 monikker).

> COMAC

Not viable. Not for the next couple decades. The reason is not that the Chinese are not able to build an airworthy plane in a few years time. The main problem will be the service offerings to an international clientele. Let's just say that China's pencheant for cutting corners is not conductive to trust into their service offerings, including the provision of critical spare parts.

> although there will be the Craic at some point in the next couple of years

The CR929? That thing? [0]

I think that if people are still complaining about Boeing's safety record and obfuscation when that goes into service, the'll start to relearn what real obfuscation looks like... (Russian airliners do not have the best safety reputation, to say the least)

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRAIC_CR929

$100 billion doesn't seem like much of an impediment in a world with $300 trillion of investable assets. It's only an impediment if you can't recoup the investment, which is much more difficult if revenues are split 3 ways rather than 2.

Here's the $100bn question: why does it have to cost $100bn? Is it natural, i.e. the actual complexity of the product, or is it artificial (regulatory overhead, procurement process, etc...). It so much seems like this may be some of both...

Mostly the cost of complexity. For $20+ billion Comac can barely get a decent aircraft off the ground, and that's a state-owned enterprise with what amounts to an unlimited budget and likely more than a small percentage of industrial espionage.

> and that's a state-owned enterprise with what amounts to an unlimited budget

I don't think that helps your case. I would expect a state-owned enterprise to be over-budget, especially if managers knew they had "what amounts to an unlimited budget".

Depends on the state. In the US most such programs are just Military Industrial Keynesian Stimulus. Which why why they are full of fail if you think functional results are the goal rather than 'white people welfare'

look to fly the Sukhoi Superjet