Quote: The most influential man in the global commercial-aviation business said Tuesday that Boeing and Airbus should expect serious competition to emerge from China, Russia and Japan starting in about 15 years. That prospect, said Steven Udvar-Hazy, should help to shape the looming decisions at both manufacturers over replacement programs for their single-aisle workhorses, Boeing's 737 and Airbus' A320 family...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...rospace/2003616877_aircraft14.html

Interesting comments from Mr. U-H, I'm a little surprised he didn't include India as a potential source of a rival/challenger of the current "duopoly" in manufacturing large transport aircraft as well. Nothing reported in the article about his current thoughts concerning the A350 programme, Mr. U-H was speaking at the same annual event (ISTAT Conference) where last year he "shot-down" the design iteration of the A350 launched by Airbus in 2005.

No doubt China will build commercial airliners, and most will be for their newly protected domestic market, but I have serious doubts about India, China, Japan ever being a serious competitor to Boeing and even to Airbus. The reason has to do with having the ability to invent new technologies. Look at how the A350 was blamed for being outdated after the 787. Think about why Bombardier has had problems launching he C Serires, as there have been serious considerations that it would be outdated against Y1 or an A320 replacement. A few per cent difference in operating costs is all it takes the define the winner against the loser. These emerging countries can make their 70 seat RJs and they will never be benchmarked against a Boeing design, but once they go to the 120 plus seat range,it will be difficult to sell their planes outside their home markets. The only way Boeing and Airbus will lose ground is if they slow down their R&D efforts. Now some may come after me and say that yeah but look at how the Americans lost turf in the auto industry to the Asians? As I said, as soon as one stops investing in R&D, and not continually launching new and improved designs, one will lose its stronghold.

In all why is Udvar-Hazy saying this? Because he welcomes more competition. If Boeing would be the only show in town for an all new narrowbody replacement, what negotiating leverage would he have if he has eye on 100 or so Y1's?

This is not new. There will be some other aircraft manufacturer than Airbus and Boeing in some time, and for aviation enthusiasts that should be great. Remember the old days when there was Lockheed, MDD, Hawker Siddley, BAe, Vickers, Tupolev, Iljushin, Antonov, Dassault Breguet? So much diversity, today it's only Boeing and Airbus. My thoughts on particular countries:

Russia: Will do something, this new Sukhoi Super Jet - of which Aeroflot recently purchased 30 - might just be the beginning.

Brazil: Maybe Embraer goes into producing larger jets someday.

China: Will definitively build wide-bodies in the future. Expect them to look very much like A or B models.

Japan: Might build own planes, might be satisfied with building half the 777 and 787.

India: I don't see anything there.

I also expect collaboration of some of the countries mentioned above.

And if some of our US member complains about "state interference" on airbus'
side then wait till China gets into this business, then you will learn what "state
interference"" is...(IMHO).

Quoting Thorben (Reply 2): China: Will definitively build wide-bodies in the future. Expect them to look very much like A or B models.

A Chinese copy?

Boeing and Airbus are both becoming integrators, subcontracting out work all over the globe. I doubt if a China, Russia, or Japan could make a competitive product or sell it worldwide without following this practice.

I would take Mr. U-H's comments with a grain of salt.

As any automobile manufacturer will tell you, it's not just about producing a product - it's about being able to service and support the product as well.

If you have a jet from manufacturer X, and your plane is stranded somewhere, you need the part as quickly as possible. Do new manufacturers necessarily have the distribution network to assist you?

I don't think that any new manufacturers will "burst onto the scene", as manufacturing a product that others already make, unless that product is WILDLY different or much more efficient in some way.

Let us also remember that the market for air travel is volatile, and can go way up or way down. If too many manufacturers are making airplanes and another downturn such as 9/11 happens again, airlines will cancel orders and a glut will appear.

Boeing learned that it is better to be cautious and be ready for such a downturn than it is to double-up production to meet a short-term demand. Airbus is painfully learning that you focus on what customers need rather than prestige products. New entrants into the market will need to know this lesson as well.

So Magyar, are you trying to say that there is no state interference in A's business. If that's true, then Madonna is still a virgin. As far as Hazy's comments... he should stay out of the sun. Not gonna happen in our lifetime.

> Russia: Will do something, this new Sukhoi Super Jet - of which
> Aeroflot recently purchased 30 - might just be the beginning.

I have to wonder whether the SuperJet is part of Boeing's plan. A co-production agreement with Sukhoi would seem to address several product line issues.

sPh

The barriers to entry are high, very high even if there are two remaining widebody manufacturers left to compete with. First, it is the technology as I have mentioned. It is fine that China, Russia, and India have the technology to launch satellites and get into space programs, and that would make one to believe that it would be no brainer to get into making widebody planes as good as A and B. But as good as A and B mean life cycle costs (fuel burn, maintenance, etc.), reliability, and an umbrella of world class support system. These are the factors airlines deal with when planning for 15 years for their fleets. If A or B screw up like Lockheed or MD did, then that would lower the barrier and China may jump in.

Another huge barrier is that like Airbus, Boeing is on the path to have a very common cockpit across its product line. This is an attractive means of customer retention, superbly attractive to lessors as it increases the ability to find homes for their planes, and help support more and more favorable financing terms (as the market liquidity of the aircraft are increased).

China has the highest chance in competing with A and B but they would need an angle to break through the barrier. As long as Boeing will build their future planes in 5 days as they will snap together larger and larger finished pieces (787), the labor advantage that China may think would have will become irrelevant. I stand to the fact that they would need better technology than A and B to break through the barrier to be a serious player outside their home market.

Why is nobody including Embraer as a serious contender? If they grow their E195 it's a direct 737 / A320 competitor. And they proved to be capable of building some damn fine aircraft too!

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 1): but I have serious doubts about India, China, Japan ever being a serious competitor to Boeing and even to Airbus. The reason has to do with having the ability to invent new technologies.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 5): I would take Mr. U-H's comments with a grain of salt.

The minute you take your eye off the ball and get lazy is the minute you lose competitive edge.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 1): In all why is Udvar-Hazy saying this? Because he welcomes more competition

And he knows he needs good products to sell! He also knows that all glory is fleeting, a warning everyone should heed.

Quoting Magyar (Reply 3): And if some of our US member complains about "state interference" on airbus' side then wait till China gets into this business, then you will learn what "state interference"" is...(IMHO).

Isn't THAT the truth!

Quoting Magyar (Reply 3): And if some of our US member complains about "state interference" on airbus' side then wait till China gets into this business, then you will learn what "state interference"" is

   ...question is, how would Airbus react to such?

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 11): Quoting Magyar (Reply 3): And if some of our US member complains about "state interference" on airbus' side then wait till China gets into this business, then you will learn what "state interference"" is ...question is, how would Airbus react to such?

As far as I know, only the US was fighting China's practices. US was very vocal about the fact that they pegged their currency to the Dollar. Now that they are a WTO member, they may behave a bit better, but then again since when has a WTO member been an angel.

Quoting Slider (Reply 10): The minute you take your eye off the ball and get lazy is the minute you lose competitive edge.

Agreed. That is why I said, being ahead of the competition in terms of patents and pushing the technology envelop is the surest way to stay ahead. Trying to leap ahead with subsidies and all has proven that it promotes complacency.

Quoting Glareskin (Reply 9): Why is nobody including Embraer as a serious contender? If they grow their E195 it's a direct 737 / A320 competitor. And they proved to be capable of building some damn fine aircraft too!

They make good planes but stretching the 195 will only take a few sales from baby Y1. If Embraer wants to go after this market, they will need to design an all new plane, with common cockpit to the E170/E190 family, and from that they could make a good living up to 150 seats. They have in some ways penetrated the barrier to A and B's low end. They can do alright with a new plane up to about 150 seats being #2 or #3 (depending on what Airbus does or does not do). As for the widebody market, not for a long time.

Quoting Sangas (Thread starter): Interesting comments from Mr. U-H, I'm a little surprised he didn't include India as a potential source of a rival/challenger of the current "duopoly" in manufacturing large transport aircraft as well.

I'm not surprised in the slightest. India is a real up-and-comer, no doubt about it. But they have not yet demonstrated the manufacturing prowess of China. This is not to say they won't figure it out, but as of right now, they don't have it. I read a great article by an Indian lamenting his country's inability to innovate, especially in the technical arena, and he offered some stellar examples to bolster his point. I wish I could find it now...

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 4): Boeing and Airbus are both becoming integrators, subcontracting out work all over the globe. I doubt if a China, Russia, or Japan could make a competitive product or sell it worldwide without following this practice.

I think you're right. Subcontracting work spreads risk in so many ways, including insulation from currency fluctuations insofar as fabrication and some assembly is concerned. I suppose that begs another question: can Japan, China, or Russia afford to source and build fabulously expensive machinery in one currency and produce it predominantly in another? The Euro is hardly a volatile currency and Europe seems rather stable in a political and social fashion, but they've been hurt by selling in one currency and producing predominantly in another.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 8): The barriers to entry are high, very high even if there are two remaining widebody manufacturers left to compete with. First, it is the technology as I have mentioned. It is fine that China, Russia, and India have the technology to launch satellites and get into space programs, and that would make one to believe that it would be no brainer to get into making widebody planes as good as A and B.

I don't see at all that the ability to launch satellites translates well into building competitive airliners. Satellites are a huge technical challenge, and some of them may even be commercial, but all of those satellites properly get state-funded R&D because some of the satellites have military applications as well.

And this is why I don't see such an easy crossover. Boeing and Airbus both have huge military arms, and the knowledge they possess -- proprietary and/or classified -- gives them a *huge* advantage. Airplanes are difficult to design, and just as tough to build. One of the two players in today's current duopoly "appears" to be struggling to move into the CFRP-fuselage era; indeed, their latest and greatest product still uses a standard metal fuselage. How much more difficult might it be for a new maker to figure this out? Both of those manufacturers have huge knowledge bases for avionics, controls, maintenance. Will it really be so easy for China or Russia to simply come up with that knowledge? No, though it's probably easier for Russia because they already have an existing knowledge base (and we can argue about the degree to which it is current). They could partner with somebody to acquire the knowledge, but this might drive up the cost of the product.

The real issue in my opinion is whether or not any of these new players could really build an airliner on par with one from A or B. They'll have to if they want to sell it much outside of China. There may always be some airlines who will buy it simply because it's cheaper, but most airlines have shown a willingness to pay for performance.

I always thought B and A were in fact each others best friends despite the competiton.....UH forgot Brazil..expect to see a 737 sized Embraer one day....if either A or B falter, youd see the void filled by China or Brazil and hte results will not be good for the survivor A or B

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 13): Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 8): The barriers to entry are high, very high even if there are two remaining widebody manufacturers left to compete with. First, it is the technology as I have mentioned. It is fine that China, Russia, and India have the technology to launch satellites and get into space programs, and that would make one to believe that it would be no brainer to get into making widebody planes as good as A and B. I don't see at all that the ability to launch satellites translates well into building competitive airliners.

and that is what I said. Please re-read my post and don't quote me out of context

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 8): It is fine that China, Russia, and India have the technology to launch satellites and get into space programs, and that would make one to believe that it would be no brainer to get into making widebody planes as good as A and B. But as good as A and B mean life cycle costs (fuel burn, maintenance, etc.), reliability, and an umbrella of world class support system. These are the factors airlines deal with when planning for 15 years for their fleets.

Quoting Magyar (Reply 3): And if some of our US member complains about "state interference" on airbus' side then wait till China gets into this business, then you will learn what "state interference"" is...(IMHO).

What Airbus got away with (even before the bilaterial in the 90s) will not happen again. The US watched as Lockheed and Douglas get pushed out of the market by subsidized Airbus, and will not be willing to let it happen again, esp if the country that does it is a member of the WTO.

Quoting Magyar (Reply 3): then wait till China gets into this business, then you will learn what "state interference"" is...

Technically, it wouldn't be "state interference" as the Chinese government would still likely own the factory and employ the workers. Therefore, they'd merely be "running their business".  

Russia will just continue to copy Boeing and Airbus models like they have for years.

In today's manufacturing world ? there will be no such thing as a complete Chinese / Japanese product - the main assembler, tester might be China or the company may be inc in these places , but manufacturing, I would imagine to be spread out throughout ...

I agree - India probably will not (should not ?) get into manufacturing business - lack of infrastructure will be a shackle. Also, China is ages ahead in manufacturing and "benchmarking". My guess is the focus in India will be more on the software , design and research.

We have a nice thread going here about China's efforts to build a widebody by 2020:

China Aims To Produce Jumbo Jets By 2020

In it, Astral makes a good point that the Chinese are very cognizant of the fact that their planes must be certified by the FAA and JAA for them to have any chance in the western market, so they will surely include western-based electronics.

I would guess that their first iteration would be a capable but not revolutionary airplane geared mainly toward their domestic market. Second and later iterations would be more advanced and on par with Airbus and Boeing offerings--maybe by 2030.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 15): and that is what I said. Please re-read my post and don't quote me out of context

Easy there!   I know full well what you said and I didn't offer a whit of disagreement, which is why I didn't say "I think you're wrong" or anything or the sort. You may have inferred it, but I didn't say it. I only expanded the commentary beyond the scope of support, reliability, and fuel burn to the knowledge base required to design and manufacture airliners.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 2): China: Will definitively build wide-bodies in the future. Expect them to look very much like A or B models.

Reverse-engineered 787 or 350?  

Quoting Magyar (Reply 3): And if some of our US member complains about "state interference" on airbus' side then wait till China gets into this business, then you will learn what "state interference"" is..

  

They'll have to start by building for their domestic air market, which will become large enough to sustain one or two models. If they undercut A and B a lot in price, we could see a lot of smaller airlines around the world potentially operating the plane. However, it's going to be a steep uphill battle to produce an airplane lineup competing with Boeing and Airbus.

History has shown that 2 manufacturers for the commercial airplane market is about what the market can sustain these days, as witnessed by what happened to MDC.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 2): This is not new. There will be some other aircraft manufacturer than Airbus and Boeing in some time, and for aviation enthusiasts that should be great. Remember the old days when there was Lockheed, MDD, Hawker Siddley, BAe, Vickers, Tupolev, Iljushin, Antonov, Dassault Breguet? So much diversity, today it's only Boeing and Airbus.

Oh the melancholy! I agree, the current A vs B duopoly is quite dull compared to the days of so many great manufacturers and aircraft that didn't all look the same. Aviation needs some fresh air!

Quoting Thorben (Reply 2): Russia: Will do something, this new Sukhoi Super Jet - of which Aeroflot recently purchased 30 - might just be the beginning.

They certainly have the knowledge base, but the lack investment and infrastructure for now. If the Sukhoi SuperJet proves itself, it will pave the way for future designs. I can totally imagine Russian companies teaming up with mid-sized non-EADS European companies in the future, as they are doing on the SuperJet. Also, the creation of OAK will create the critical mass that they currently lack.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 2): Brazil: Maybe Embraer goes into producing larger jets someday.

Why do you think they chose a conventional design over a T-Tail for their EMB190? To enable it to GROW efficiently!   For a minimal investment, Embraer could release a stretch version and compete directly against the inefficient bottom end of the B737 and A320. But they aren't stupid and will not get into larger jets any time soon, and if they ever do they won't go at it alone.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 2): China: Will definitively build wide-bodies in the future. Expect them to look very much like A or B models.

For now, let's see how the ARJ21 does. As for the future, they definitely have shown the will to build a widebody, but they need to develop a big know-how that they currently lack. As much as they may claim, it will take them much longer than they think to get there. But they will get there eventually.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 2): Japan: Might build own planes, might be satisfied with building half the 777 and 787.

Japan is building the 787 wing. That is no small thing and requires huge technological know-how that not many have. Hard to predict what they will do with that know-how in the future.  

Quoting Thorben (Reply 2): India: I don't see anything there.

They probably have the longest way to go as for manufacturing & technical know-how, but they could provide valuable support to any of the above countries in software and research.

Hopefully one or more of the above mentioned will spice up things in the aviation world! I'm getting sick of A vs B posts on airliners.net!   

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 13): One of the two players in today's current duopoly "appears" to be struggling to move into the CFRP-fuselage era; indeed, their latest and greatest product still uses a standard metal fuselage. How much more difficult might it be for a new maker to figure this out? Both of those manufacturers have huge knowledge bases for avionics, controls, maintenance. Will it really be so easy for China or Russia to simply come up with that knowledge?

Raytheon Beechcraft was up for sale recently, and they know CFRP.

Quoting R2rho (Reply 23): Japan is building the 787 wing. That is no small thing and requires huge technological know-how that not many have.

No kidding. I think it's unbelievable that Boeing has done that. Bill Allen is spinning in his grave.

Quoting R2rho (Reply 23): Japan is building the 787 wing. That is no small thing and requires huge technological know-how that not many have. Hard to predict what they will do with that know-how in the future.

   If Japanese companies have demonstrated one thing, it is that they know how to build things well (see auto manufacturing for example). It doesn't mean that they are the biggest innovators, but they can make a quality product. Not that I expect to see Honda airliners any time soon, though  . And with the Japanese government helping get something off the ground...

Quoting R2rho (Reply 23): Embraer could release a stretch version and compete directly against the inefficient bottom end of the B737 and A320. But they aren't stupid and will not get into larger jets any time soon, and if they ever do they won't go at it alone.

I think the likes of Embraer are going to be what forces Boeing to put some plane in the lower end market space when they split up the Y1 project. Not only would they cede the <150 seat space to other manufacturers, but they would enable someone like Embraer to gain marketshare and experience developing larger aircraft and allowing them to keep pushing upwards. Airbus, interestingly, has a wider range to put two families (or subfamilies) because they have the whole space underneath the 358 to fill. An Airbus/Embraer hookup could be interesting...

cheers.

Quoting Slider (Reply 10): The minute you take your eye off the ball and get lazy is the minute you lose competitive edge.

I could not agree more. China has become a modern economic and industrial power. 20 years ago a lot of people would laugh at the prospect of them building Three Gorges Dam. I hate to say it but a huge portion of goods and appliances are imported into my country from China.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 8): The barriers to entry are high, very high even if there are two remaining widebody manufacturers left to compete with. First, it is the technology as I have mentioned. It is fine that China, Russia, and India have the technology to launch satellites and get into space programs, and that would make one to believe that it would be no brainer to get into making widebody planes as good as A and B. But as good as A and B mean life cycle costs (fuel burn, maintenance, etc.), reliability, and an umbrella of world class support system. These are the factors airlines deal with when planning for 15 years for their fleets. If A or B screw up like Lockheed or MD did, then that would lower the barrier and China may jump in. Another huge barrier is that like Airbus, Boeing is on the path to have a very common cockpit across its product line. This is an attractive means of customer retention, superbly attractive to lessors as it increases the ability to find homes for their planes, and help support more and more favorable financing terms (as the market liquidity of the aircraft are increased).

Again I agree. However many of the older aircraft were redesigned by Boeing to start commonality(example B747-400), as well as 737. If China is starting from scratch, I would like to believe they would use a flightdeck which would be crossed over to future designs. I think their biggest problem would be product support. However they are one of the largest exporters in the world now and have the transportation (with integration of many global companies)to move products around the globe. If they do not keep everything in house(which no one is anymore)the spares availability will depend on their suppliers.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 24): Raytheon Beechcraft was up for sale recently, and they know CFRP.

CFRP technology is being used in construction of warship hulls,rockets,missles and a wide spectrum of other industries. I would imagine if you have the bucks, purchasing technology and the people with the desighn know how would not be that hard.

I believe that these are also some of the reasons why Russia cannot be counted as be to far away either , although they will have to contract around the globe as A and B have done to be truly successful.

I may be off on my opinions however I see a cycle of competition arising from the east in the not to distant future.

Its not so much what country builds what its the consumer's perspective on it. No offense but the last thing i bought from China was an R/C car for my cousin. He had more of a kick out of it when i drove over it with my 30 Ton tow truck loaded with an 18 wheeler hooked up. China doesn't really have the not so much technical means but everything is so mass produced and quality control is a bit laxed over there it may come out more of a hazard than anything else. I know Boeing and i know Airbus. I know their reputations minus the bickering between the 2 with the A380 and 787. I do question though wether or not they will survive in the market of wide-bodies. Maybe in the market of 50-100 seater competing with Embrarer but not with Airbus and Boeing. I don't see India really producing a plane i just don't think they will want too. Japan i think will focus on just making parts for the 777 and 787 and this kicking new Ipod i bought   thanks folks

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 1): No doubt China will build commercial airliners, and most will be for their newly protected domestic market, but I have serious doubts about India, China, Japan ever being a serious competitor to Boeing and even to Airbus. The reason has to do with having the ability to invent new technologies.

Really? Let's go back few years when in tghe auto industry the big names were Ford, GM and Chrysler. What happened there? Now you have Honda, Toyota and up and other up and coming companies. In emerging countries like India you have Tata Motors and Maruti Suzuki are producing better cars. Let's not be arrogant... this is a global world where capital is moving around faster than you can imagine (Last year Hong Kong stock market had more IPOs in value and numbers than NYSE... challenging NY as the center of financial capital)! So don't kid yourself by making baseless statements that new technologies cannot arise somewhere else... this is a global world where capital and talent travels!

Quoting Slider (Reply 10): Quoting Magyar (Reply 3): And if some of our US member complains about "state interference" on airbus' side then wait till China gets into this business, then you will learn what "state interference"" is...(IMHO). Isn't THAT the truth!

  

Quoting Cba (Reply 22): History has shown that 2 manufacturers for the commercial airplane market is about what the market can sustain these days, as witnessed by what happened to MDC.

And Lockheed, Convair, Vickers, Hawker Siddeley, BAe, Dassault, Fokker, etc.  

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 4):

Quoting Sphealey (Reply 7):

Agreed, and Sphealey brings up an interesting idea. What if one or other of the big manufacturers worked out an agreement with one of the smaller jetliner builders (e.g., Embraer or Bombardier) for the latter to build or at least assemble a product basically designed by one of the larger companies? Something, for example, such as what many international automobile manufacturers do, whereby Mazda builds overseas what is essentially a cut-rate Ford for sale worldwide? I welcome any and all thoughts.

Ok schipholjfk your sort of right on that but you have to look at how Honda Toyota Nissan and Mitsubishi were started. They started off with small cheap cars that worked there way into the US auto market as a way of competing with the gas guzzling cars built by GM Ford Chrysler back in the 70's when the oil crisis hit in the late 70's people looked and the foreign market and saw that these small and cheap cars were alot more affordable and better on gas which drove down US auto markets although for some reason i would like to ask someone if they could find me a 2007 Lexus LS400 for $12,000 with nothing wrong with it... (and yes the baby can parellel park itself its so cool) but why are we mentioning the auto industry thats a seperate forum and site. oh and for those who would like to know the rate of an average car on the market. Take the list price of say a 2007 Audi A8 around $60,000 i can sell it to a Russian for almost double that price. by the way Russians love Audi's for some reason.

[Edited 2007-03-15 04:20:53]

Quoting CO738 (Reply 30): but why are we mentioning the auto industry thats a seperate forum and site.

Maybe because automobiles are a handy metaphor for relatively (note that I said relatively) large, heavy, and expensive machinery that are built in relatively large numbers. People like metaphors, even if they aren't perfect.

your right on that VC10DC10 but i am not hauling 737's and A320's to Port Newark everyday so they can be boxed up in freight containers and shipped over seas which is actually a cool thing to watch them do  

Quoting CO738 (Reply 32): which is actually a cool thing to watch them do Smile

  

All I'm suggesting is that one of the larger manufacturers might be able to achieve some of the cost savings that car makers get by building some of their models (often smaller or lower-end models) overseas: lower wages, lower benefits, lower taxes, lower property costs, etc.

Quoting VC10DC10 (Reply 33): overseas: lower wages, lower benefits, lower taxes, lower property costs, etc.

here is the problem with that, bought 20 years ago people from the New York City area moved to New Jersey because taxes were lower bout 10 years ago those taxes nearly tripled now people who have lived in New Jersey most if not all of their lives are moving away to North Carolina, South Carolina and it just keeps building and building the never ending cycle of progress and thats what will happen overseas. It may not happen quickly but it will happen and as a result what you paid say 110 million for a plane overseas before will be 210 million in say 5-10 years (just using some random numbers not actual figures)

Quoting Schipholjfk (Reply 28): Really? Let's go back few years when in tghe auto industry the big names were Ford, GM and Chrysler. What happened there? Now you have Honda, Toyota and up and other up and coming companies. In emerging countries like India you have Tata Motors and Maruti Suzuki are producing better cars. Let's not be arrogant... this is a global world where capital is moving around faster than you can imagine (Last year Hong Kong stock market had more IPOs in value and numbers than NYSE... challenging NY as the center of financial capital)! So don't kid yourself by making baseless statements that new technologies cannot arise somewhere else... this is a global world where capital and talent travels!

Cars and commercial airliners are different kettle of fish. The reason why Asians have done so well in the auto industry is that they figured out how to make cars that appeal to consumers while the big three were too busy trying to appeal to Wall Street in meeting quarterly earnings targets. So they cut back on R&D, hired financial winnies to boost their sales by having a stake in rental companies (Avis and Hertz), got into the auto financing business and in time they lost the technology edge as they were more focused on hiring MBAs over hiring engineers (in fact they became masters of laying off engineers).. Fast forward, an equal Honda or Toyota is more pricey today compared to the same class from GM, Ford, or Chrysler - meaning that despite being expensive, their product are becoming more and more appealing and Toyota this year will be number 3..

When one is talking about a commercial airliner, as I said above the most important things that are APPEALING are: life cycle costs, reliability, and world class support system. The first item has to do with fuel burn and maintenance costs and that is the highest hurdle a new comer will need to jump over (even Airbus now seems to have a problem on that front). As long as Boeing and Airbus don't do what the big three did, and they continue to invest, they will maintain their lead. If they don't, then I would agree with you and the Asians will catch up.