How the U.S. (Inadvertently) Created Boeing's Biggest Competition
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 сен 2024
- Get the 5-minute newsletter keeping 2M+ innovators in the loop: clickhubspot.c...
Together, manufacturers Airbus and Boeing dominate some 90% of the global civilian aircraft market in a duopoly that stretches back to Airbus’ founding in the late 1960s. But at that precise moment, three US companies - Boeing, Lockheed, and McDonnell Douglas - were in a battle to produce the first wide-body jumbo jet. That battle nearly set the market on a path toward total US domination; instead, it brought us the most iconic plane of all time and the eventual downfall of two of those three companies. Watch the full video to see how.
-
Sources:
Who’s Bashing Whom? Ch. 5
escholarship.o...
Competing Economies Ch. 8
www.princeton....
Museum of Flight
www.museumoffl...
HistoryNet
www.historynet...
Nat’l Air & Space Museum
airandspace.si...
AirlineRatings.Com
www.airlinerat...
www.airlinerat...
J. of Air Law & Commerce
scholar.smu.ed...
BBC
www.bbc.com/cu...
Pacific Northwest Quarterly
www.jstor.org/...
Office of Sec. of Defense
history.defens...
Airbus
airbus.com/en/...
www.airbus.com...
Fortune
fortune.com/20...
SimpleFlying.com
simpleflying.c...
simpleflying.c...
The New York Times
www.nytimes.co...
www.nytimes.co...
www.nytimes.co...
Northwestern
sites.northwes...
The Guardian
www.theguardia...
Washington Post
www.washington...
Smithsonian Magazine
www.smithsonia...
Flight Safety Foundation
flightsafety.o...
Airways Magazine
www.airwaysmag...
Music by Tom Fox, Johnny & Iz, LLC
Get the 5-minute newsletter keeping 2M+ innovators in the loop: clickhubspot.com/mm5
🤍💙👍🏻👌🏼😊
Love your channel! Cheers from Israel, Haifa
You said it wrong, executives at MD didn't swallow their pride, they swallowed boeing 😢
Boeing was garbage long before MD. 737 pressure vessel failures, PCU failures, 747 cargo door failures, etc etc etc.
As we said at the time; MD bought Boing with its own money.
@@bradkane793no, MD was aquired by boeing, MD didn't buy boeing
@@RustonProductions-AVRENo. You need to understand the distinction between facade and substance-or, to put it another way, the difference between ownership and control. Yes, Boeing was the de jure purchaser of MD. However, the actually useful fact is that McDonnell-Douglas was the de facto acquirer of Boeing, for by taking control of its board and executives, MD (the nominal acquiree)-along with its financial backers-infected Boeing with the sorry culture of 10Qs and DEI uber alles that has led to near-daily catastrophic failures and stranded astronauts. Many have known this for decades.
@@carlwomble7060 oh, thank you for explaining
You forgot to mention the effect of the oil crisis in the 70s, which made fuel efficiency a thing to consider.
2 oil crisis - one in the early 70s with a short effect, one around 1976 that lasted SEVERAL months and had significant effects.
Yea - the A300 had 30% less fuel consumption compared to Lockheed TriStar and DC-10. This brought Airbus the breaktrough worldwide and wrecked it's American competitors.
@@olivermeineke9707 Basically the same can be said for the loss of utter dominance of GM and Ford in the US car market. European and Japanese more economic ( but well equipped) cars coming in and assaulted that market dominance.
There’s a reason why people say “Md bought Boeing with Boeings money”
What reason is that?
Boeing has been garbage since the 1960s. The original 737 had numerous flaws like the pressure vessels and rudder PCUs.
@@calvinnickel9995 What color is your aircraft company?
Small correction: the 60-minute rule still applies in general, but now twin-engine jets can get an Extended-range Twin-Engine Operations (ETOPS) rating. The Airbus A300 was the first twin jet to ever get an ETOPS rating with ETOPS 75 (it could fly up to 75 minutes from a suitable diversion airport). This does NOT mean the rule was relaxed in general, it only applied to the A300.
Newer planes have even higher ETOPS ratings. For example the A350 has ETOPS 370, which allows it to fly almost anywhere except directly over the South pole!
edit: clarification
(One more correction), it was the McDonnell and Douglas aircraft companies that merged to form McDonnell Douglas, not Lockheed and Douglas
Not only them but also modern jets like their A350, and A340 and A380, Boeing 767, and Boeing 777.
@@28ebdh3udnav Yeah I know, I should have clarified that.
Engine Turns Or Passengers Swim
EROPS was a better acronym before they changed it.
Contrary to the statement in the video, that Boeing did not sell a single B747 between 1968-72, the truth is that it sold 62 Boeing B747s in a shorter period, i.e. between 1969-71.
Yes. That's right. 747 was an immediate hit. Very confused by much of the argument in this video.
@@roberttai646 Yes, this confused me as well.
correction: Boeing didn't slash the 60,000 jobs because of a lack of demand for the 747. Those 60,000 jobs were slashed because Boeing cancelled their SST program in 1971. The bulk of those 60,000 engineers were those who were working on the SST.
5h ago I landed from Brussels in a a320 (not even a NEO).
The Airbus is so much better than the equivalent Boeing!
More spacious, more comfortable, much quieter and with far better AC.
It wasn't just politics. Airbus are genuinely great planes!
Meh. I can’t really tell the difference other than Airbus windows are higher.
Everyone thinks the Max is a new development of an old design. The 737 itself is a Frankenstein based on a 727 fuselage. The 727 is just a section of old 707 fuselage. Next time you are on one, notice how the cabin tapers forward of row 5 because they had to graft a small two-man cockpit onto the wider tube. When one flies overhead, notice the exposed wheels because it is too short to accommodate landing gear doors (or modern engines).
new boeing planes, old boeing actually used to be a competitor, the 747 and a380 had equal respect until boeing became a shell of its former self
"Boeing has struggled from PR nightmares"... PEOPLE DIED!!
People dying because of your Plane is bad PR
You can just strike the cursed MAX suffix and the new 737 has a clean name again. PR nightmare averted. Which − of course − was Donald Trump’s idea.
And very American, no one went to jail
It’s nonsense that Boeing sold no more 747 until 1972. As well as the Pan Am the 747 was sold and introduced by BOAC, KLM, Qantas, SAS, Lufthansa, Condor, Iberia, Aer Lingus, TWA, Eastern, United, American and many, many others.
Secondly, ICAO IS NOT the European regulator that would be EASA and the individual civil aviation authorities of the various national equivalents of the US’ FAA.
The FAA is required to conform to ICAO requirements as well. See, the USA is not the centre of the world.
The TriStar was a medium range aircraft initially and it was originally requested by United who instead bought the DC-10.
The TriStar was hampered by the collapse of Rolls-Royce. A deal was struck to have Tupolev build L1011s in the USSR under license which would have rendered it break even but the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR in 1979 and the resulting sanctions on the USSR by the USA scorched the deal.
My thoughts exactly. This comment needs more likes.
Delivered is NOT sold.
L1011 was always the nicest
Agreed 👍
looked the best anyway
True
that S-duct engine design is simply too majestic to ignore
@@trijetaviator I know much better than DC 10 Douglas looked like they forgot to put the middle engine on and at the last minute they just stuck it up on the tail
“Execs wallowed in shame” aka still made millions of dollars and suffered next to no consequences whatsoever just like calhoun at boeing today.
Yeah, Boeing died in the 90s. The modern company is just McDonnell Douglas with the Boeing name.
Boeing has been awful since the 60s.. the 737 having several deadly flaws (pressure vessel, rudder PCUs) long before MD.
That consortium started with BOAC and Aerospatiale with the Concorde
Not boac but bac, British aircraft corporation, a conglomeration of most of the British aircraft makers like De Havilland, Hawker Sidderly, Avro. Also Concorde was developed by BAC and Initially Sud Aviation which became part of a french merger to form Aerospatiale in the late 1960s.
BOAC aka Bend Over Again Christine ( Keeler a political scandal involving sharing her charms between a minister and a Russian diplomatic attaché ) was the state longhaul airline. European manufacturers needed consortia for viable projects, but Airbus was NEVER an Anglo-French project like Concorde.
Wikipedia: By 1966 the partners were Sud Aviation, later Aérospatiale (France), Arbeitsgemeinschaft Airbus, later Deutsche Airbus (West Germany) and Hawker Siddeley (UK).[7] A request for funding was made to the three governments in October 1966.[7] On 25 July 1967, the three governments agreed to proceed with the proposal.
In the two years following this agreement, both the British and French governments expressed doubts about the project. The memorandum of understanding had stated that 75 orders must be achieved by 31 July 1968. The French government threatened to withdraw from the project due to its concern over funding all of the Airbus A300, Concorde and the Dassault Mercure concurrently, but was persuaded by Ziegler to maintain its support.[10] With its own concerns at the A300B proposal in December 1968, and fearing it would not recoup its investment due to lack of sales, the British government withdrew on 10 April 1969.[7][11] West Germany took this opportunity to increase its share of the project to 50%.[10] Given the participation by Hawker Siddeley up to that point, France and West Germany were reluctant to take over its wing design. Thus the British company was allowed to continue as a privileged subcontractor.[6] Hawker Siddeley invested GB£35 million in tooling and, requiring more capital, received a GB£35 million loan from the West German government.[10]
@@RobBCactive You are correct. Concorde was Anglo-french, AIRBUS is a conglomeration of several historical aircraft makers, like what British Aerospace was a conglomeration. GERMANY, SPAIN, FRANCE, UK, NETHERLANDS, ITALY, and others formed to make the company we know today as AIRBUS
The UK actually sold their stake in Airbus back around 40 years ago. But we still assist with the project by assisting with the wings. One of the best pan-european projects to come out of peacetime.
A common mistake is to assume there was no European aviation before Airbus. The British and the French launched their first jetliners even before any US manfacturer (de Havilland Comet in 1949 and Sud Aviation Caravelle in 1955). Their problem was that they didn't have a domestic market at critical size to compete with the US, hence why they had to consolidate into Airbus.
@@jimbo6059Bae sold their shares of airbus in 2006 so they had their hands on Airbus for a lot longer than expected
EXCELLENT video!
Sub'd
1:27 - Lockheed C-5A Galaxy goes here.
1:47 - It would have been GREAT to see this expanded by a minute. The C-97 is a modified B-29. The atomic bomber. And the 707 was an outgrown of the B-47 nuclear bomber. So everyone who watched Oppenheimer and left the theater thinking how bad nukes are, they've actually been a huge force that shaped the world we live in today. All airlines today have evolved from nuclear bombers. This topic actually deserves a standalone video. (Transportation is only one aspect of many.)
The 707 is not a B-47 and it is easy to tell this just by looking at the two side by side. It was developed instead from the C-135/KC-135 military tanker and transport platform. By lengthening the fuselage a bit and widening it enough to support 6 abreast seating, the 707 was born.
Alex Beuerman,
No one ever said that the 707 was a B-47. Nor so much as a variant, nor mod of a B-47.
My post had 2 autocorrect typos. What I had typed was that "the 707 was an OUTGROWTH of the B-47." That is to say...
*No B-47, then no 707.*
(The other autocorrect was "airliners" clobbered and replaced by "airlines".)
Wikipedia:
----
Boeing studied numerous wing and engine layouts for its new transport/tanker, some of which were based on the B-47 and C-97, before settling on the 367-80 "Dash 80" quadjet prototype aircraft.
----
I've flown in many 707s. I've flown in many KC-135s. I've seen the Dash 80 up close. And I've seen several B-47s. I used to drive by one every day for years. I am well aware of the differences.
@@dahawk8574 I love the Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker as an Airfueler.
I got to see the very first 747 in early 1970. I was only a week or 2 old and remember nothing of it, but I was there.
I flew an American 747 in 1971 JFK to SFO. They had a piano bar in the back!
I'm sure they'll bounce back..."Boeing...Boeing."
This was an _excellent_ video, better than many of airline industry specialized channels. Subscribed.
Don't forget the Boeing SST's impact on the 747 and subsequent commercial airline development in the US. In the late 60's, Boeing and the US airlines considered supersonic transport the future. Europe had the Concorde (heavily subsidized by certain European governments) and Boeing had it's SST in development (heavily subsidized by the US government). Boeing itself projected that the 747 would end up mostly as a cargo hauler while airlines ordered SSTs. Thus the lack of orders for new "conventional" planes like the 747. Then come the early 70's: government funding stopped, oil prices rose, the impact of sonic booms on routes was realized, and the real-world economics of SSTs were seen with Concorde. These all combined to make the 747 at lot more appealing in the mid-70's, and open the door to 767 devlopment once the 747 become profitable.
Don't forget the TU-144 was also in the SST mix, though it had issues it DID exist and WAS used commercially.
a bit of grammar issue. 4:55 you make it sound like Lockheed and Douglas joined together to make McDonnel Douglas in 1967...
even though you meant, Lockheed....
and (douglas who became McDonnel Douglas in 67) --
Wonderful quality of research, and a total lack of useless filler. SUPERB - thank you !!!!
Loved the Air Jamaica prop, especially that particular livery. Though not as iconic as the rainbow livery later, it's the one I first remember seeing as a kid.
That was a terrific vid explaining a bit of aviation history. I’m one of those that checks which plane I’ll be flying on. Later this year an A380 happy 😊 second leg 787 not happy. And I loathe 737s even before the current problems. To date I miss 767s flew London to Calgary in 1996 ❤
I liked my trip on a Brazilian-made Embraer plane last winter. Other than not having a window seat, I did not have any complaints about it.
1:15 - finally, somebody who hasn't forgotten that most Boeing civilian airliner breakthroughs were mostly financed through military contracts.
So they actually made something for their money other than just getting endless handouts from the government like Airbus.
Just like every other industry in this crumbling military induristrial complex. Everything developed in the US is ultimately for war and eventually given to the general pop. Microwaves. Drones....
Weirdly framed (and unfortunately badly researched) story. With such a multi-factored origin story, it is strange to emphasize that "the US created Airbus". Sounds like American exceptionalism once again. The US creates and destroys as it sees fit and there are no others? You could also say that Pepsi created Coca Cola, because they didn't do better. If Pepsi was no 1, then Coke would only be no 2. etc. Sounds just weird.
But apart from the weird framing, the ETOPS was just one small factor. Actually the Airbus did not sell well at all in the beginning. That's the reason why they let Eastern fly the planes for free - because no one in the US wanted them. So yeah, this part of the narrative doesn't hold up either. Plus - that's completely freely available information. Loads of channels have covered this topic before and there is tons of additional info available on the internet. It actually is quite a feat to make up some alternate universe story here....
Presentation and graphics very nice though. Wish they would put more time Into their research....
ETOS was the entire reason for the L-1011 and the DC-10 family (counting the MD varients like the MD-11).
Without ETOPS, there was no reason for those airliner models to exist.
The 727 was a different story, it was largely about "enough performance to work at high/hot airports with somewhat short runways".
Brilliant video and fascinating content too
Mustard had a great video on the Airbus A300!
Thanks for highlighting Air Jamaica at the end!!!❤❤❤
FYI, I think your Union Jack is being flown upside down!
Editing is awesome!
Love the Air Jamaica A300 model. I miss Air Jamaica
I only started checking when the DC 10 started crashing. The first flight I took was on a 747, and that plane had a reputation for reliability and safety.
Interestingly, DELTA uses 757 and even 767 on a short route from Atlanta to Ft. Lauderdale during Thanksgiving!
Hi from India Karin. First time I chanced upon your channel and I must say I was hooked to your delivery of words, diction and pronunciation- all perfect. Thanks. One question.. why were 3 engined aircrafts discountinued- were they unsafe ?
My understanding was that a two engine plane is cheaper as it is one less engine to pay for and also less fuel and less maintenance during operation. Newer rules allow 2 engine planes to fly further, so you don't need a three engine plane for as many routes.
Great I like this episode! ❤
COMAC could become part of a big 3 but with India right behind China economically and Brazil finally turning things around I have a feeling in 25 years there will be at least another 2 if not 3 major companies that become major global powers within the aviation industry..
Excellent synopsis of this top. BTW, I, as a child, was aboard the first passenger carrying flight of the L-1011. We flew out of, and returned, to Dulles International near Washington DC during the 1972 "Transpo '72" transportation show.
My first transatlantic flight was on a TriStar...I am eternally enamored with that plane.
Did you forget the more “effective” 727 smaller range fast and pretty funny, also l 1011 did not look like any other aircraft
Don't forget that the US fair commission ruled against Bombardier selling its wide body twin engined jets in the US without a heavy tariff. To get around that ruling they joined with Airbus. Since Airbus had a plant in the US they built the Bombardier C Series jets.
A fantastic historic overview, I really enjoy following the early days of commercial aviation 👍
I was only two minutes in to your video when I subscribed. And I never do that. Bravo...great video!😃
Very informative video.
The hostess \ Narrater was Extra Pleasant Also, and Well Prepared for Her Subject
I'm loving that Retro AirJamaica A300 😉
Boeing built the B52 bomber, still flying, most of the military tankers still flying as well. Boeing used to build the best planes, but with consolidation in the industry and constant cost cutting, they have lost their way. Went from an engineering company, to a company more concerned with profits and DEI.
Airbus also was massively subsided by European governments to keep their airplane industry alive.
This would be a great video for ReasonTV's series, Great Moments in Unintended Consequences
fun and educational video
the 747 model plane in the beginning is the most a380 looking 747
Boeing didn't deliver planes to anyone except PanAm until 1973 because PanAm bought all the 747s that Boeing could make in that time. That's not a sales failure - that's a screaming success. Boeing sold its entire 747 capacity for nearly 4 years. Boeing got slammed in 1971 and laid off a slew of employees because the SuperSonic Transport (SST) project got canceled and lost its federal funding, and at the same time government spending on Apollo and military contracts was dropping. The debt Boeing took on to develop the 747 didn't help the balance sheet, but having the plane ready to sell and a full book of orders probably saved the company.
On a more serious note: I do check the aircraft type before booking, if there is a chance it might be a 737 Max.
you didn't mention the MD-12. that never was.
about that C919 comac plane, that has been on the drawing board since 2005, i went over to amazon and can't find it. can you provide a link?
Try doing a google search - there are PLENTY of links to the C919
Also Wikipaedia.
Lots of stretched truths and glossed over facts here behind the flashy graphics. It's laughable to assume that Boeing built the 747 because "they already designed it". All they had was a proposal for a large freighter, there was no blueprint or even a factory in Everett at the time.
Those executives with no vision from MCD went to Boeing and that's when the trouble began there.
My personal flying rules: no Mad Dogs (McDonald Douglas'), no Guppies (737 s).
Lol. Must be fun trying to travel. Especially in the USA and avoiding Atlanta.
6:38 This is a huge difference from the European organisation, where an engineer can work on both military and civil projects during his or her career, but where *design is totally subservient to the order* and *each aircraft is designed according to specifications dictated by the real needs of the market* , without trying to recycle and adapt an aircraft designed for something else.
Customers, both public and private, organise *competition at the design level* with *design contests* , so *only the best projects get the funding to be built, which avoids the waste of competition at the production and exploitation level on finished products and maintenance.*
"Quality over quantity" applied.
1:27 "Lockheed ultimately won the contract..." _(shows a picture of a plane Lockheed made 20 years earlier instead of the actual airplane that won)_
With ICAO ETOPS first approval for TWA in 1985 and the first flights of the DC-10 and L-1011 in the very early 1970’s it makes a lot of sense why McDonald Douglass and Lockheed went with a third engine, given the context of the industry at that time. What would have been really clever is to have a plan to remove the third engine when turbo fan reliability enabled ETOPS, but only hindsight is 20/20.
DC 10 was Douglas only, not McDonald Douglas.
It’s McDonnell Douglas, not McDonald Douglas. And the DC-10 was McDonnell Douglas, not Douglas. The 2 companies merged in 1967 and the DC-10 was actually the first commercial aircraft produced by the newly combined company. The DC-9 was the last Douglas “only” commercial aircraft
Goodness, a cute gal showing planes like the Constellation
that were made before she was born. I never liked the L1011.
When a 727 leaped into the sky a 10 waddled.
The lathe beds for these planes went on and on and on.
no embraer mention... or bombardier(although they are kind of an airbus subsidiary). big sad.
So who is the person who made this video? Does she have more content? This is the first video I’ve seen on this channel and it seems to be many different people. How do you follow someone? Great video, well scripted, cleaver.
Cool video
Only Pan AM bought the 747 between 1967 and 1972 ? Really ? How do you explain then Lufthansa, Sabena, KLM, SAS, Swissair, Alitalia, Iberia, South African, TAP, Air France, BOAC, Air India, JAL and Qantas getting 747's from 1970 to 1972.
Sale date and delivery date can be years apart. Statement was no sales, not no deliveries.
@@stevewolfe6096 The way you stated it was as if Boeing only delivered to Pan AM you should edit that section
This video was not made by an aviation expert, a lot of what is said is very dumbed down for the average viewer who has no prior knowledge about aviation
@@stevewolfe6096
A total misuse of statistics in that case to prove a dodgy point.
It would have been more accurate, and useful considering aircraft lead times, to have said X 747s were _sold_ by 1972, except that would not add weight to the 747 being a flop as implied by the video as it stands.
I think because the video concentrates more on the US market instead of the world market.
Aahhh wrong.. the incubation of the 747 was due the SST program. BOEING needed a cargo plane to move completed components to the final assembly plant. When the SST program was axed by the FEDS. Boeing took that design to the market place.. as for AIRBUS its founding was simple . The competing nations realized that no one country could compete with other on the content and survive with Lockheed Boeing and Douglas providing better aircraft at a cheaper price. So the decision to pool talent into a single assembly location was agreed upon. Wing design from England's Hawker , fuselage from sud-avaiton France , landing gear from Germany messier, tail plane and other sub systems from Spain...
Airbus includes: Messerschmitt, Heinkel, Dornier, Junkers and Focke-Wulf. The best of German engineering.
I flew on a Lockheed L-1011 a few times way back when, a nice aircraft in the passenger cabin. Lots of room and this was before airlines started practically stacking people on top of each other, you could stretch out even in the economy section. I loved the airplane, always looked forward to flying on one whenever I had to travel. Oddly, never flew on a DC-10. As far as checking what I'm flying on these days, I don't really fly anymore but I wouldn't fly on Boeing or any aircraft with GE engines even if it was free. Let's just say I know a few things and I have no intention of accidentally disappearing.
Flying on a 757 is something you have to do before Delta starts looking at replacing them. The takeoff performance is simply unmatched by any other aircraft. They are getting to over 20 years old now, and the 757 was designed before Boeing started to decline.
I avoid newer Boeing planes, considering their recent safety record. The older ones are fine though.
I need that Air Jamaica model...❤❤
There was a little more to the story of three engines. FAA rules also would not allow a twin to cross oceans because they still did not trust the reliability of jet engines, and, of coarse, the old rule had not been updated yet. FAA is not quick to make changes, just look at how long it took to start allowing computers to dominate the industry. They are now at least 10 years behind the auto industry.
I like your sense of humour ! I would only fly on the B737 Max 800 and 900 series one time for the experience, and then avoid them. The same for the B787 Dreamliner. Boeing has to get their ethics together, and there has to be no more bubble gum left in the caulking, or pieces of machine tools left in finished airplanes. By the way, I never had an opportunity to fly the DC10, the VC10, nor the Boeing 707; that's sad. Aarre Peltomaa of Mississauga, Ontario We at YYZ still see several Lufthansa B747's every week, so eat your hearts out if this means anything to you. I'm told that JFK Airport in New York City no longer has B747's.
I would fly on any Boeing planes as they are safe and the only reason you would think otherwise is the media, also 747 still flys to jfk
how fast could SpaceX build Starships comparing Boeing in its prime.
0:20 even casual industry observers could see the writing on the wall for boeing as many as ten years ago or more.
"stay safe up there" (looks suspiciously at the Boeing)
I like the video, but man is your voice high pitch! You should sing Opera!!!
A few DC-10's crashed in the 70's
8:00 This had to do with performance not the style of engine. If an airplane, loaded to its max gross weight was unable to maintain flight after losing an engine the rule applied.
The early jets were actually a bit less powerful than the late radial piston engines, so if a twin jet lost an engine it would be forced to land.
This rule only changed after the more efficient and powerful turbofan engines replaced the turbojet engines. The turbofan engines have sufficient power you can stay up even with one engine out.
Statistically, I know flying on Boeing is nothing to worry about but I am now considering how I fly. Trust is a very fragile commodity.
This should be a 2 minute video.
I won’t roast you for the size discrepancy between your Boeing 747 and Airbus A300 models, except to point out that the Airbus model isn’t one of an A300, it’s a model of the shorter body Airbus A310.
“The More You Know” 🎶Dah, dee, dah, dum.🎶💫 😂😂
Yes, unfortunately I have a reverse view now of what used to be an unofficial motto. now it is... "if it's Boeing, I'm not going".
Of course I check... never again am I flying a 737 max
Still does control VP positions… most of which are former military senior officers.
The irony is that Lockheed has a larger market cap than Boeing or Airbus.
An entire video about ETOPS without mentioning ETOPS once.
The C19 is interesting, and we assume China will build their own engines someday- but China's domestic market is hamstrung by huge swathes of off limits military airspace.
What can you do? Hold the 747 model closer to the camera. Those were not real hobbits in LOTR.
Interesting video - I enjoyed it. I hadn't known about the '75 Minute' rule in force in Europe. But even with a 60 minute rule, I would have thought that a wide body twinjet flying just within continental USA could stay within 60 minutes of a diversionary airport. Certainly east of the Mississippi! Were US airline executives fixated on routes over water (e.g. transatlantic, Caribbean, South American) that would take aircraft further from an airport than 60 minutes?
Another thing to imagine imo would have been flying to Mexico City from for example NYC or Chicago
You did not know about the rule, because it did not exist. Unfortunately this video is full of inaccuracies...
There is a lot of internal politics as well as external. From what I understand McDonnell has now managed to trash two better companies in reverse take-overs. Allegedly there was personal animosity between McDonnell and Douglas, and when they merged the less capable management team (from McD) took over. Never seen any personal problem in the Boeing merger but in that case the less capable (McDonnell Douglas) management did dominate, with the engineers at the top of Boeing being replaced by the accountants and lawyers running McDD.
This management change can be seen in the move of HQ from Seattle (where Boeing airliners were designed and produced) to first Chicago and now (even worse) to the other Washington, showing a final move to prioritising government contact over engineering excellence or even financial sense.
It's "consortium", not "consorshum".
The Union Flag in the background is being shown upside down! Oops!!
It’s interesting perspective however lacks fundamental crisis and valid argument. Lockheed Martin never truly competed in Jet Age, the amount of product it’s produced during the jet age small, in the same time Boeing created 717, 727, 737, 757, 767. During that time we had McDonnell Douglas/Douglas DC8, DC9, DC10, MD80, MD90 and MD11. So Lockheed Story they simply gave up and believed serving the military was much more stable and profitable. Mc Douglas failures was DC-10 (terrible safety) and MD11 over saturated market. Lead to downgrade of their focus in commercial market.
Lockheed tried a jet airliner ONCE - the L-1011.
After it, they went back to concentrating on Military contracts - at which they have had quite a bit of success and DID compete successfully.
I absolutely ask what plane I'll be flying on. Yes, I do my diligence to fly AirBus. Born and raised in USA, don't feel safe on Boeing.
Your union jack is upside-down.
no it isnt.
I look if it is Boring and sigh... Besides for the many accidents with Boring, the plains are just so awfull.
.. and I almost jumps for joy, when it is Airbus A380
Last time I flew was 1990. I knew nothing about the jets I took. Matter of fact first time I saw reverse thrusters I thought the engine was coming apart. I got real worried about it. I was by the window. The lady next to me said you must not fly much. I said no. I don't.
Does she have her own aviation channel?
Used to be proud of flying Boeing. Now I look at the safety card and hope it's an Airbus.
Did you know that an airworthy Airbus killed 227 people when it crashed into the south Atlantic?
The reason it crashed was because the pilot that was controlling it believed that if he pulled all the way back on the stick, the flight envelope protection systems known as Alpha Floor and Alpha Protect would keep the plane from stalling and recover with minimum altitude loss.
What he didn’t realize is that these systems had been disabled due to the plane switching to Alternate Law because some air data probes had iced over.
He had pulled so far back that the plane no longer registered a stall. but when he relaxed the stick the stall warnings would start again.
The other crew tried to take over, but he continued to pull back and his inputs overrided the other pilot’s.
A few seconds before crashing, he said “I’ve been pulling back for a while now” and the other crew finally realized what was happening.. but it was too late.
Boeing has a lot of flaws. But Air France 447 would have NEVER happened in a Boeing aircraft because all of the crew would have realized what was happening due to the visual and tactile feedback the control column was providing. The crew would have fought for a bit.. but they would have figured it out long before they crashed. What’s more.. a Boeing pilot would have never depended on a flight envelope protection system to keep the plane flying.
@@calvinnickel9995
How long ago was that?
And has it ever happened since?
lets hear it for AIR JAMAICA
America seems to be one country unable to partner with any other country. It’s either our our way or the highway.
What is the way to become a millionaire the fastest possible way?
Being a billionaire and buying an airline....