Boeing at X-Roads?

[WillowRun 6-3]

Not so fast

Regarding Bombardier and its asset sales including the C-Series (per tdracer), this SLF/atty called Montreal home during those events. The sense of loss among the aerospace commentators and cognescenti in the city and QC generally was nearly tangible. I can only guess wildly at how traumatic reaction to a similar sort of failure would be if a company in the U.S. tried to enter this market, but failed.

Before betting on any of the other aerospace manufacturers succeeding if they tried this market on the premise that BCA will fail (or as some here contend "has already failed"), would it not be the case that sufficiently wise Strategy decisions would be needed for substantial capital investment to materialize? Perhaps the insistent push toward net-zero would open avenues for successful new strategies, but isn't there still much skepticism in the engineering communities of relevance about the feasibility of the long-term aspirational goal set by the ICAO Assembly - especially regarding SAF at realistic quantities and the other new propulsion systems bandied about as if their technology will be available in just a few years? Boeing's difficulties have increasingly become traumatic but they've been starkly visible for all to see for . . . pick your example of decline of engineering excellence and fill in the blank. If a new Strategy was readily available, there has been plenty of time for it to have been recognized and shopped for investment.

Second, People. There are workforce components in various locales with the necessary skills, recency or currency with assembly techniques and all the other disciplines of relevance, just waiting to be hired by some new entrant? Maybe there are but the generalized slide of the American workforce - accelerated by the beancounters' devotion to ROI and share price - makes this poster skeptical.

Third, issues of Process (getting corporate leadership and Boards to understand the strategy and then commiting to the initiative) would be, if not herculean, still very heavy lifting. Fourth, what about Resources? - do any of the supposed willing potential new entrants have capital and debt structures sufficient to fund this sort of massive new aircraft (and/or powerplant) initiative? I mean, and not to pick on that bird, but don't Messrs. Pratt and Whitney have some other place where they're devoting lots of attention (the engine inspections etc.)?

Finally in my set of five objections to seeing a new entrant as of course, obviously realistic and feasible, is Integrity. What got BCA into its sorry state? Do you recall the unspeakably shallow, hollow look worn by the then-CEO as he testified on Capitol Hill in the aftermath of the MAX accidents? Well, is it clear beyond doubt or question that any of the other companies are not in the throes of the beancounters too?

I'm not advocating against any enterprise and I'd be happy to see information showing my doubts and negative assertions proved incorrect.

(Credit for the rubric, Strategy, People, Process, Resources, and Integrity to a true gentleman who shall remain nameless here, except to say his career featured being PASC at least three times. (Presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed)