Even funnier because Boeing tried being cute with the Canadian aerospace industry, and instead shot themselves in the foot with a shotgun.

Boeing tried to screw Canada's Bombardier out of the C series aircraft by getting the US Gov to throw on tariffs for an aircraft they had no competitor for. Everything was already done AFAIK that point too; certifications, and everything, the plane was entering into production to fufill US airline orders. It cost $1.3 billion Canadian to develop the plane.

I suspect Boeing thought that'd be the end of it. Airbus had other ideas. They got the whole Bombardier C series aircraft for about $550 million and opened an assembly plant in Alabama in Mobile, about 350 miles from Boeing's assembly plant in Huntsville. Along with the orders from US airlines (I think for 130 aircraft). No more tariffs because these planes are now US made.

As a Canadian it stings a little, but I can't help but cackle at the fact that Boeing execs handed their one major competitor several billion in revenue on a silver platter. And Boeing will need years if not decades to come up with a competitor.

So from Canada: Get fucked sideways Boeing.

Sad for Canada and Bombardier, but good for the plane: With Airbus's money, marketing, stability and reputation, the amount of planes made will, I think, be a multiple of what it would have been with Bombardier. It's a really good plane, too. Comfy, efficient, reliable so far.

And a spectacular own goal for Boeing that they deserved so much :D

This version of the story is too generous to Bombardier who really screwed up the development of the CS100/A220. Even if Boeing hadn't done anything they would have needed many more bailouts from the government to get anywhere.

Development costs doubled from 2 billion to 4 billion. Then when they went well over 5 billion and the federal government + Quebec had to bail them out to the tune of 1.5+ billion. Even without Boeing, had Airbus not stepped in, it's unlikely the CS100 would have succeeded. European buyers had already started to cancel orders seeing the debacle unfold.

Despite having many orders on the books, banks refused to lend to Bombardier because they expected them to make a loss on the airplane.

So yeah, screw Boeing who played really dirty and Trump helped them (the tariffs were reversed a year later when a more independent body reviewed them). But had Bombardier not been in a massive financial hole this wouldn't have mattered.

I would understand budget increases or timeline delays rather than fear for my safety.

An enraged Canadian...I have seen everything today...

The number one reason the planes start to have issues is essentially a lack of effective oversight. Not sure how much blame boeing gets for this, but this is a prime example for a certain amount of effective regulation having a positive impact on the safety culture within a corporation.

The MAX should never have been accepted as being the same airframe as the original 737.

> lack of effective oversight

Regulators getting cozy with the people they're supposed to regulate happens in every industry, in every country, and... understandably so. Those are people who have the same expertise, same training, who work together all their life.

It may be one of the most difficult problems to solve.

Its not "getting cozy", its good old felony called corruption. You can tackle that, its not that hard if done correctly. But one needs to avoid conflict of interest from all angles

I guess the question I would have is: to what degree is this happening in the US versus other places like Europe or China, and what can we learn by examining this in those places.

I would hope FAA learned their lesson after being (rightfully!) publicly humiliated by Trump doing their job better and proceeding to lose their prestige as the leading authority of aviation authorities.

But stupider things have happened.

Are you taking about the executive orders trump signed that reduced FAA oversight?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2019/03/18/did-tru...

[citation needed]

Number one reason is lack of meaningful competition (political buying decision Boeing vs Airbus) and industry monopolization. In the 1960s there were Douglas, Convair, Lockheed, Boeing domestically

And now compare the safety records, and number of plane crashes, between the 60s and today.

Causation, Corelation.

I agree that a lack of oversight is a core issue, but it also isn’t the job of the government to make your products good. The government can set same rules, but it’s on Boeing to execute.

Of course, besides that, Boeing itself is maybe THE major force reducing oversight.

> but it also isn’t the job of the government to make your products good

A century of progress in domestic automotive sector would disagree with your opinion, here.

If it wasn't for the gub'ment infringing on the liberties of the little guys (corporations), we'd still be driving cars without airbags, seatbelts, and proper fuel tank safety regulations.

I think we’re in agreement on that. I wasn’t saying that regulations shouldn’t exist. I was saying that if Boeing makes shitty products that kill people, then it is entirely their fault if they go out of business. The person I was replying to seemed to be shuffling some of the onus onto the government.

I think it’s to a significant degree the government’s fault that air travel wasn’t safe and people got killed, but it is entirely Boeing’s fault that their products suck and kill people and are losing them money.

Why would they go out of business? Unless of course they are actually banned from flying death traps.

Besides, Boeing as the only US aircraft manufacturer is too big to fail, especially with China aircraft increasing in number globally.

KC-46: The USAF had Airbus tankers on order, before Boeing sued and the cinzract was, surprise, awarded to Boeing again. So the USAF and Boeing share equal blame here.

I have to read up on the F-15EX, generally so these kinds of upgrades are basically new designs and as such prone to delays and a bunch of technical issues. Especially for military aircraft.

Nothing to add on the MAX that wasn't said already. Boeing sure has its work cut out developing a new version, the existing 737 design is beyond its design life by now.

Well, if a plane crashes for unonown reasons, it is quite normal to ground the fleet, nothing special about Boeig here.

USAF was (and I suspect still is, given KC-46) happy to go with Airbus, it was GAO[1][2] who intervened alleging corruption and mishandling to give Boeing the platter instead.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Offi...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X

Thanks for reminding me, this is such old history facts get fuzzy in my memory.

Not to say that Airbus military plane record is spot less, but the A330 MRTT seems to be a decent plane.

I hate to see Boeing having all these problems, most of which are totally unnecessary.

You’ve forgotten the numerous delays for the 777X

I forgot 777X was even a thing.

It is a beautiful and very quiet plane. I saw it do a close approach over the beach in Seattle last summer.

https://blog.geaerospace.com/technology/second-boeing-777x-m...

Brain drain caused by SpaceX? (shooting in the dark here)