alt.hn

5/23/2026 at 4:02:43 PM

Italy moves to Airbus A330 tankers

 https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/05/21/italy-moves-to-airbus-a330-tankers-in-major-nato-aligned-shift

by embedding-shape

5/23/2026 at 4:54:27 PM

> Several defence analysts point out that although the KC-46 is the standard tanker of the USAF, it has suffered technical problems and delays that have slowed its competitiveness abroad, to the benefit of the A330 MRTT, which has already been adopted by many NATO and non-NATO allies. In this sense, the Italian choice is seen more as an industrial victory for Airbus than as an American “political defeat”.

The political factor surely played a role here, but this bit at the end of the article also sheds light on Boeing's decline, which predates the current US administration.

While politics acted as a catalyst, Boeing was ultimately defeated by its own undoing.

by tcgv

5/23/2026 at 5:39:25 PM

Having doors flying off one of your planes and engine failure causing part of the cowling to bust a window and sucking a passenger out of another is definitely not a bit of politics. Nevermind the bullshit 737Max nonsense. At this point, I'd imagine any Boeing orders left are only in place because Airbus can't keep up. Politics didn't need to come within 10 miles of this decision. It's just the free cherry on top.

by dylan604

5/23/2026 at 6:21:26 PM

The engine that failed on the Southwest flight was a CFM International CFM56, which has also been used on multiple Airbus planes including the A320. The engine itself as well as the containment mechanism that’s supposed to prevent this kind of situation were the responsibility of CFM and had nothing to do with Boeing. This could just as easily have happened on an A320.

This example only serves to highlight how popular narratives take hold and get reinforced by laypeople.

Boeing absolutely deserves to be raked through the coals over MCAS, over their deteriorating engineering culture, and over regulatory capture. But blame them for the things they actually carry responsibility for.

by stouset

5/24/2026 at 12:51:37 AM

> The engine itself as well as the containment mechanism that’s supposed to prevent this kind of situation were the responsibility of CFM and had nothing to do with Boeing.

NTSB seems to think it’s Boeing’s responsibility to redesign the cowl to prevent this.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...

by dpark

5/24/2026 at 2:21:21 AM

If you read your own link, they also think it’s the engine manufacturer’s (CFM’s) responsibility to work with Boeing to redesign the cowl, and recommend that the European Aviation Safety Agency require engine manufacturers to work collaboratively with airplane manufacturers for such cowl design in the future.

by labcomputer

5/24/2026 at 3:13:25 AM

I don’t actually see that but I’m also not going to read all 193 pages.

That’s not the point regardless. The post I replied to made the claim that Boeing has no responsibility here. The NTSB clearly disagrees.

by dpark

5/24/2026 at 3:45:20 AM

Come on, you can’t say you can’t be bothered to read the document and also double down on your interpretation of it in the same breath.

by beering

5/24/2026 at 5:17:48 AM

My "interpretation of it" is explicitly in the document.

"Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the FAA require Boeing to determine the critical fan blade impact location(s) on the CFM56-7B engine fan case and redesign the fan cowl structure on all Boeing 737NG-series airplanes to ensure the structural integrity of the fan cowl after an FBO event. The NTSB also recommends that, once the actions requested in Safety Recommendation A-19-17 are completed, the FAA require Boeing to install the redesigned fan cowl structure on new-production 737NG-series airplanes. The NTSB further recommends that, once the actions requested in Safety Recommendation A-19-17 are completed, the FAA require operators of Boeing 737NG-series airplanes to retrofit their airplanes with the redesigned fan cowl structure."

Is your position that somewhere in this 193 page document, the NTSB buried a line that says "just kidding, Boeing is faultless here"?

by dpark

5/23/2026 at 6:21:26 PM

If we're stringing random facts together to try and make a point, Airbus was found guilty two days ago of manslaughter in the 2009 Air France crash that fell into the ocean.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czd2qmdvmq6o

It's the same airplane as the MRTT, A330.

by 866-RON-0-FEZ

5/23/2026 at 7:13:36 PM

I think it's fair to call out the parent comment for things that are not exactly caused by Boeing (eg: the engine failure), but I also think it's important to look at the why.

In the case you're referring too, the focus was on poor training and failure to follow up on earlier incidents. It's not the same as designing a system based around a single sensor that is known to fail or forgetting to bolt a door.

by celsoazevedo

5/24/2026 at 2:23:26 AM

> It's not the same as designing a system based around a single sensor that is known to fail

Right, they designed the their system with two sensors, and if they disagree, the system gives misleading indications to the pilots! That’s so much better!

by labcomputer

5/24/2026 at 3:20:56 AM

My understanding is that the Airbus equivalent (they don't really have the same thing) uses 3 pitot tubes/angle of attack sensors, not 2. More importantly, Airbus pilots know about the system, while Boeing only told airliners about MCAS after the Lion Air crash.

I'm not a pilot and I don't know that much about planes, but I've read/watched enough about crashes to know that these sensors fail way too often. To rely on only one already sounds like a bad idea, but it's irresponsible not to tell pilots and train them on how to deal with the new "feature".

by celsoazevedo

5/23/2026 at 9:43:26 PM

If you actually read into the case it's more complicated than just it's Airbus fault. It was caused by one of the confused pilots input. Why they were confused is a complicated story.

by whatevaa

5/23/2026 at 10:16:20 PM

That particular failure mode would have been impossible in most other planes including all Boeings. 1. Pretty much only Airbus doesn’t have linked controls 2. Pretty much just airbus changes what the controls allow you to do (the “law” as they call it) without input from the pilot.

No other airliner make on earth could have suffered that accident. It would have been extremely obvious what the issue was, and how to solve it on any other aircraft I can think of. This was like a car crash caused by the computer changing how the steering wheel worked mid drive.

I still have no idea how Airbus didn’t catch more flack for that design.

by dghlsakjg

5/23/2026 at 5:57:52 PM

Incidents that are over five years old have minimal impact in terms of current competition between Boing and Airbus.

The airbus A320 family is associated with 1,490 fatalities, there’s just a vast number of flights daily so tiny risks add up. Companies buying new aircraft care far more about maintenance to fuel efficiency than a few rare incidents due to already corrected issues.

by Retric

5/23/2026 at 6:09:15 PM

Can you shed a bit more light on this? I can't find any evidence that there are that many fatalities related to that plane, at least related to its operations in flight. Seems like there are few or if my quick look shows even zero fatalities related to it flying. You wrote "associated" but can you define what you mean by that? During manufacturing, maintenance and other non-flight-related incidents?

by harmmonica

5/23/2026 at 6:13:56 PM

That was a mistake on my part those are A320 numbers not A380.

by Retric

5/23/2026 at 6:16:15 PM

Ah, gotcha. Probably not supposed to reply with this, but applaud your quick correction!

by harmmonica

5/23/2026 at 6:07:13 PM

> The airbus A380 family is associated with 1,490 fatalities…

What? The A380 has never had a single fatality or even injuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Accidents_and_inci...

> Incidents are over five years old have minimal impact in terms of current competition between Boing and Airbus.

Airbus (and Boeing) has a decade-long backlog. They absolutely do. https://flightplan.forecastinternational.com/2026/04/14/airb...

by ceejayoz

5/23/2026 at 6:13:34 PM

A380? Did you mean A320?

by dorfsmay

5/23/2026 at 6:14:07 PM

Yes, corrected remembered the fatalities but should have looked it up anyway.

by Retric

5/23/2026 at 7:12:04 PM

Yeah - the mass casualties with regards to Max, changed things a lot. Boeing used to be about enginering; that quality dropped indeed decades ago. Not sure why or how.

by shevy-java

5/23/2026 at 7:37:37 PM

Not sure why or how

There's plenty of documentation to be found on the why and how, especially following the 737Max issues: https://team-fsa.com/insights/what-happened-to-boeings-cultu...

> Following the 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas, Boeing’s robust culture eroded. Subsequent safety issues with the Boeing 737 have put the company under international scrutiny and underscored the profound impact of a weakened corporate culture. As Forbes aptly put it, “Boeing’s current travails about safety issues with the 737 MAX 9 can arguably be traced to the company’s weak corporate culture.”

Or read https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/why-boeings-pr... for Harvard's take on the same situation.

by tremon

5/23/2026 at 9:59:22 PM

The best and understated part about it is that the culture change was pushed from Boeing side, and at least some people from McD side of the merger were pushing internal memos warning about actions pushed by Boeing-lifer CEO exemplified in then ongoing 7X7 program (future 787)

by p_l

5/23/2026 at 9:24:24 PM

> Boeing used to be about enginering; that quality dropped indeed decades ago.

I just pointed out in a different thread that software is going through that right now.

by lelanthran

5/23/2026 at 7:41:10 PM

> Having doors flying off one of your planes (…) definitely not a bit of politics.

It’s a checkmate of the American system. Boeing delegated construction in parts of the country that needed jobs (=politics), who then botched the job and didn’t get sanctioned because it was bad optics to accuse those providers (2013 airframes). More recent events are also a checkmate of the ultrafinanciarization practices, a checkmate of the consultancy / provider / controller model, and a failure of corruption (the FAA/Boeing dinners inherited from the Macdonnell management) in a context where USA rips at the seams (industrial failure, no-one can be trusted as trustworthy) and tries to renew its ideology (apogee with the Trump elections).

That is a fair bit of politics that made Boeing fail.

by eastbound

5/23/2026 at 5:58:21 PM

No, majority of Boeing orders to foreign countries use USA backed loans or is a significant part of pushing US interests in the world.

The message here, and it’s granted if you’re not aviation, finance or political aware is Italy keeping their aviation sector EU based being In the EU themselves and most likely getting tremendously better financing.

While the Boeing incidents you mentioned are unfortunate and a true consequence of engineering culture eroding at Boeing, it does not dispel the true safety of aviation in general nor the high success of the 737 Max.

by rootsudo

5/23/2026 at 7:06:36 PM

The Boeing issues started 20 to 25 years ago, it just take a long time to become this bad.

by ricardonunez

5/23/2026 at 10:21:48 PM

Yes, but the decline of Boeing also imo demonstrates relentless American short-term-ism. Gutting the engineering side of the company, optimizing to avoid testing a new plane model (the 737 Max debacle) and so-forth is very characteristic of America today.

by joe_the_user

5/23/2026 at 5:05:31 PM

Meanwhile Switzerland is being taken to the cleaners. F35s that had a fix cost in contract with Lockheed are no longer fixed cost because the US says so.

Patriot systen permanently delayed and price going up and up. Stop payment resulted in the US pulling from the pre payment for the F35s...

by sschueller

5/23/2026 at 5:23:10 PM

> Stop payment resulted in the US pulling from the pre payment for the F35s...

Which Switzerland then reluctantly agreed was allowed under the terms.

As you say, totally being taken to the cleaners, and it is unclear how they escape in the short term.

The more this happens though, the more deals like Italy's make senese, irrespective of the performance comparison of the two planes.

If the US is going to be an unreliable partner, that will filter through in many many ways, and the US can hardly blame anyone but themselves (well, I'm sure some fingers will get pointed internally).

by Quarrel

5/23/2026 at 9:27:19 PM

It’s not just Europeans who are beginning to realize that the U.S. can’t be trusted; Australians are still waiting for a hypothetical delivery date for their AUKUS submarines.

The Gulf states find themselves with too few interceptor missiles and a war in Iran.

The Japanese and Koreans are building as many war ships as they can.

by Beretta_Vexee

5/23/2026 at 5:27:01 PM

I don't understand why US weapons manufactures are not lobbying harder. They are losing the European market just as the largest rearmament since ww2 happens.

Maybe they are and its just a lost cause with the US administration.

by tokai

5/23/2026 at 5:53:25 PM

> I don't understand why US weapons manufactures are not lobbying harder

It doesn’t really matter if your product is better or cheaper, if the customer thinks that service and spare parts might possibly be withdrawn in the future for political (or whatever) reasons they won’t buy your product.

by helsinkiandrew

5/23/2026 at 5:57:10 PM

That is what they need the political lobbying for. Obviously not to help their pricing.

by tokai

5/23/2026 at 6:13:32 PM

If you mean they need to lobby the US government to be less schizophrenic, I agree. Though I suspect the government would just decide to start more wars.

If you mean they need to lobby the other governments, I don't think that'll work, the decreasing trust is associated with the US government's actions, not as related to the arms dealers' actions.

by hgoel

5/23/2026 at 10:59:34 PM

Can you lobby to make Trump become not Trump?

by thuridas

5/24/2026 at 4:55:37 AM

Yes.

He’s a simple creature. Just pay the man and/or his kids off. Remember the funny video comparing Oracle and Larry Ellison to a lawn mower? He is the same.

by Spooky23

5/24/2026 at 1:26:30 AM

You can lobby congress to put him in a 6x6 cell. For any reason whatsoever, including no reason whatsoever. Their trials are ultimately a yes/no vote, the facts don't matter.

They are just as complicit in failing to exercise their power.

by vkou

5/24/2026 at 1:45:51 AM

There are other rich people lobbying harder to protect other businesses not impacted by the ally double-crossing.

by dboreham

5/23/2026 at 6:05:42 PM

So they need lobbying to lie to customers? Why would that help people choose Boeing when it ultimately is up the whims of one single individual that can drastically change moods every four years?

There is a reason why imperialism ultimately always fails.

by shimman

5/23/2026 at 6:13:09 PM

No. You do understand how lobbying works right? You don't lobby your customers, you lobby that single individual. Which has never been easier as the current one takes bribes almost directly and has no true opinions.

by tokai

5/24/2026 at 2:20:08 AM

A major issue is that the US manufacturers cannot keep up with demand even as they scale up production capacity. The current order backlog of approved foreign military sales of US weapons systems is approaching $1T and growing faster than they can fill the orders.

This is creating secondary fallout as the orders from various countries get re-prioritized. It is not strictly first-come, first-served order fulfillment; you can find your order pushed back in the queue for reasons.

by jandrewrogers

5/24/2026 at 4:53:44 AM

Don’t think of them as companies in the normal sense. There’s no meaningful competition anymore and they have rolled everything up. They are essentially national industries now.

by Spooky23

5/23/2026 at 10:33:10 PM

itll be hard for US weapons manufacturers to win when a big part of the rearmament is going to be around deterring the US just as much as deterring Russia

by 8note

5/24/2026 at 8:09:40 AM

The rearmament is mostly happening because the US has shown itself a bad unreliable partner that abuses interdependence.

No lobbying can change the risk assessment where America is the risk factor.

by vrganj

5/23/2026 at 5:34:01 PM

They're very scared of their boss and the CEOs are short sighted by virtue of their compensation packages.

by SecretDreams

5/23/2026 at 6:18:04 PM

You have to understand that the smartest people in the US didn’t vote for this administration and are just as horrified as everyone else with how inept and pathetic this administration is. Unfortunately we’re a minority, the senate’s design (Wyoming has the same number of senators as California even though a small city in CA may have more people than the whole state) and the US is so ridiculously gerrymandered.

Sorry everybody but we just have to wait this stupidity out.

by newtonianrules

5/23/2026 at 6:24:37 PM

This stupidity is not going to simply be waited out. It is becoming even further entrenched.

by stouset

5/23/2026 at 6:35:42 PM

There are a lot of issues in the American political system but the structure of the Senate is not one of those.

It was explicitly created as a way to balance sovereignty of the states against populism, such as that enacted by MAGA or leftists.

If you are a small state like Vermont, you don’t want to just have California, New York, and Texas dictating all rules and laws for the country by sheer weight of their population sizes. That is expressed in the House, but the Senate serves to balance that and ensure that populists don’t run roughshod over the country.

Without such a structure states with less population would either band together and create their own super states - and you can see where this leads, or they wouldn’t have agreed to join the US in the first place.

by ericmay

5/23/2026 at 7:01:24 PM

> That is expressed in the House, but the Senate serves to balance that and ensure that populists don’t run roughshod over the country.

Yet that is exactly what has been happening twice now.

by wolvoleo

5/23/2026 at 8:06:09 PM

Well, dissolving the Senate would just make that problem even worse if that's your viewpoint. "Twice now" seems to be a dig at Trump as though MAGA is the only populist movement, but ANTIFA/BLM and other, similar populist groups have taken hold of power in various forms as well, primarily in certain west coast states and cities.

by ericmay

5/24/2026 at 1:28:57 AM

Antifa and BLM have the political power of a mouse fart. Please don't compare them to the elephant in the room.

by vkou

5/24/2026 at 2:16:32 AM

Politicians with similar far-left populist political leanings have won elections in various cities and states. I'm just pointing out that removing the Senate empowers more of these populist groups with destructive and authoritarian ideologies.

by ericmay

5/24/2026 at 5:05:22 AM

When they'll get a president with a subservient congress elected twice, and go on to drive the country into a burning dumpster, I will be willing to entertain the possibility that the existence of the Senate protects us from their destructive and authoritarian ideologies. (Despite it demonstrably failing to do so, twice.)

---

(I'm not even going to bother to ask how a movement for police accountability is a 'destructive and authoritarian ideology'. I guess making cops not murder people for no good reason, and then lying about is called 'authoritarian' by FOX, but how can any rational person repeat that?)

by vkou

5/24/2026 at 4:38:38 PM

From the prospective of many millions of Americans, and me to some extent (actions that align with my interests and ideology are good regardless of political leadership) the country is going in the right direction.

If you throw the Senate out you'd just further embolden those in power today.

by ericmay

5/24/2026 at 1:48:16 PM

> It was explicitly created as a way to balance sovereignty of the states against populism, such as that enacted by MAGA or leftists.

that only works if the smaller states are not representative of the larger majority of the population.

instead, nowadays the smaller states are actually over-representative of the populist mass - e.g Wyoming is 80% white.

by oa335

5/24/2026 at 4:40:30 PM

You're misunderstanding the purpose of the Senate, whether Wyoming is 80% white or black or any other random race. The point is that it exists as a sovereignty vote. To take it away would be to cause a civil war or at least a dissolution of the United States because smaller states will walk away.

A lot of the anti-American, anti-Senate, &c. stuff is Russian propaganda precisely because to continue to sow division and encourage populism is to invite destruction and disunity upon the United States.

by ericmay

5/24/2026 at 6:33:25 PM

i understand the purpose of the senate and believe that bicameralism is a good idea and populism is generally bad.

you seem to not understand my point so ill give it one more try:

senate was indeed formed as a bulwark against populism, but the founders didnt anticipate a 68 to 1 population difference between the largest and smallest states (california vs. wyoming), nor the vast differences in composition of their populations. when a tiny fraction of the population holds that much disproportionate veto power, the senate no longer checks populism, it actively empowers a specific, rural populist minority to override the majority.

by oa335

5/23/2026 at 6:40:17 PM

Yes, if anything the issue is that the House was capped in seats in 1929 and the population has tripled. Smaller states have an outsized representation in Congress currently.

by boustrophedon

5/23/2026 at 8:03:09 PM

I'm strongly in favor of expanding the House. I failed to mention that in my original post.

by ericmay

5/24/2026 at 2:03:43 AM

Vermonters might not want that because they hold outsized influence on the direction of the country, but then they shouldn't pretend to believe in Democracy.

So, yes, 50 million people should have more say over the country's direction than 1 million. We should stop pretending we have 55 mini countries, because the Supreme Court has stopped pretending we have a 10th Amendment.

by coryrc

5/24/2026 at 2:27:05 AM

> Vermonters might not want that because they hold outsized influence on the direction of the country, but then they shouldn't pretend to believe in Democracy.

A Republic is a form of democracy. Having a Senate in the structure that we do is entirely consistent with democratic principles. To suggest otherwise is incorrect and counter to established definitions in the realm of political philosophy.

> So, yes, 50 million people should have more say over the country's direction than 1 million. We should stop pretending we have 55 mini countries, because the Supreme Court has stopped pretending we have a 10th Amendment.

Right, like how Donald Trump and his 75 million voters get to have more sway of Kamala Harris' voters (I don't recall the exact losing number)?

Nevermind that the state of Vermont is a sovereign entity in our constitutional republic. To modify this existing arrangement you give opportunity for certain states to leave (pro-Russian viewpoints try break up the US - don't fall for them!) since they are deciding as sovereign entities whether or not to participate in the Republic. If you are upset about the 10th Amendment or whatever then you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and inviting a Civil War or something similar. I say nah to that. We'll keep the existing system because it's pretty damn good.

by ericmay

5/23/2026 at 7:14:57 PM

This might have made sense for the original 13 colonies but after westward expansion, it clearly does not. Most of the western state borders were formed for administrative reasons

by oscillonoscope

5/23/2026 at 8:09:05 PM

It still makes sense today. It's not perfect but it's a pretty good balance most of the time.

by ericmay

5/24/2026 at 9:28:47 AM

Waiting it out was the first strategy in Europe but it's clearly moving into something else.

by spaniard89277

5/23/2026 at 7:32:51 PM

> Sorry everybody but we just have to wait this stupidity out.

And the rest of the world has to suffer the consequences. It has been incredible watching americans shrugging off any responsibility.

Insufferable hypocrites.

by krior

5/23/2026 at 10:33:50 PM

[dead]

by newtonianrules

5/23/2026 at 7:53:08 PM

> the smartest people in the US didn’t vote for this administration

Trump has support from SV and Wall Street leaders, and the whole Republican Party.

> gerrymandered

Trump won the popular vote, and iirc the GOP got more total votes for the House of Representatives. What about for the Senate? Sure NY and CA are big, but so are FL and TX.

by mmooss

5/23/2026 at 10:35:07 PM

[dead]

by newtonianrules

5/23/2026 at 6:16:52 PM

You can’t lobby the Trump or “America First” crowd to not be themselves.

by spamizbad

5/23/2026 at 10:02:02 PM

Foreign Military Sales from USA all go under a very ugly kind of contract where you could argue you're not sure of delivery until after the gear was decommissioned and turned into razor blades. You can't (officially) negotiate it, you can't demand accountability on actual deliveries, the real delivery time is "whenever we get to it", and so on.

It's just that until recently USA at least pretended to care to not use those provisions too much.

by p_l

5/24/2026 at 12:47:16 AM

The US stock market is a lag indicator. It is built on perception and whim but, ultimately, is forced to deal with reality. Stories like this don't shift the market, and economies, overnight but they are showing what should be decades of economic and political shift happening relatively in just a few years. In the end this isn't just a signal that Europe has lost faith in the current administration, it is pretty clear that happened a while ago, this is a sign that Europe and others have lost faith in future US administrations. Everyone is a looser here in the long run for many reasons. We really did have it all.

by jmward01

5/23/2026 at 4:49:43 PM

The USAF also selected the MRTT but corruption took care of that threat to Boeing.

by kevin_thibedeau

5/23/2026 at 7:02:38 PM

I am surprised that USAF selecting MRTT even got so far as to be made public. I would expect it would die in some draft document on someones office PC

by rassimmoc

5/23/2026 at 8:49:57 PM

It’s good for propaganda.

by throw1234567891

5/24/2026 at 1:38:07 AM

> The tanker deal is not just a competition won; it is a decision that shifts the balance.

Did they at least use European AI to edit this?

by ricardobeat

5/23/2026 at 5:04:36 PM

Italy probably didn’t want to wait 12 years for delivery. Good choice.

by ungreased0675

5/23/2026 at 5:37:26 PM

They probably also didn't want a President Vance, Rubio, Junior or Ivanka, to use the availability of parts and tech support as a way to ensure their compliance..

by netsharc

5/23/2026 at 10:40:28 PM

Italy is a big supplier for the F-35 and other major US programs, so that knife cuts both ways. I don’t think that was a consideration at all.

by ungreased0675

5/24/2026 at 1:50:51 AM

Definitely a consideration by all countries.

by dboreham

5/23/2026 at 7:46:43 PM

This is a noob question but wondering if anyone here could answer.

There are plenty of choices for Small and Medium size plane as well as private jet. Why are most commercial airline only buying Boeing and Airbus? And why others aren't making bigger planes to compete?

by ksec

5/23/2026 at 9:07:25 PM

Industrially boeing / airbus are 100k large companies, i.e. need 300m+ base country size (or in EU case, block size) to support specialized workforce large enough for modern commercial aviation. Economically, fuel costs, i.e. engine maturity makes any entrant that's doesn't have parity engine core tech automatically none viable because simply higher costs due to lifetime fuel costs. (Geo)politically, there's lots of certification / safety drama that incumbents like US/EU will throw to undermine competitors so really also matter of geopolitical power - i.e. apart from engines, PRC COMAC using western components mostly for easier certification, they have large enough internal market to sustain development against economics. Almost no one else has those conditions, except India but they don't have industrial base.

Since topic is tankers, PRC/RU has their own tankers, i.e. for military aviation it's not strictly as difficult since fuel cost less issue. But for strategic aviation (transport/tanking) big efficiency working with commercial chassis / turbofan efficiency.

by maxglute

5/23/2026 at 9:21:15 PM

> Economically, fuel costs, i.e. engine maturity makes any entrant that's doesn't have parity engine core tech automatically none viable because simply higher costs due to lifetime fuel costs.

Neither Boeing nor Airbus make their own engines. They get them from CFM, GE, Rolls-Royce. Like everyone else. That's not the differentiator.

But it just costs insanely much to get an airliner certified. Even Boeing has been held back by its clients demanding a shared type certificate for the 737max which caused all those deaths due to mcas.

There were of course more players but they've been bought up. And some emerging brands that are excluded from our markets due to sanctions like the Chinese Comac and the Sukhoi Superjet. The superjet is particularly affected because some of its systems were designed by western companies like Honeywell and they've had to make last-minute replacements after the Ukraine war that didn't exactly work out well.

And there's some other players. Embraer is creeping closer to the 737/A320 market.

But anyway so it isn't just Airbus and Boeing really.

by wolvoleo

5/23/2026 at 9:44:16 PM

>That's not the differentiator.

It's differentiator in sense engine manufactures are part of western aviation industrial complex and can limit access, i.e. COMAC sanctions. Unless you're western core, you do not have guaranteed access. I think Embraer is creeping on to bottom end of narrowbody, but they're far from wide body. And with respect to topic, modern strategic tanking are wide body size, i.e. Embraer E190 is not same heavy league as KC46, MRTT, Y20, Il-78, and Embraer has not demonstrated ability to go beyond regional narrowbody. Fielded widebody options is really just Airbus/Boeing duopoly, AVIC/Xi'an, UAC stumbling along from legacy USSR stack.

by maxglute

5/23/2026 at 11:02:54 PM

I travelled on an E195 recently and I have to say it was much more comfortable than any 737 or 320/321 I've been on. Unlike other regionals I've travelled on in the past which were noisy, cramped and bumpy.

Their squircle fuselage works out really well. Really next-gen which makes sense because the Boeing and Airbus designs are decades old. I think they certainly have the chops to scale it up that bit to reach regular narrow body. But I imagine they just don't want to because that might mean trade sanctions from the US.

But I think the restrictions are more artificial/protectionist than actual knowledge. I'm sure sooner rather than later we'll have comacs flying in Europe. The Russian ones depend really on whether they resolve the war situation.

by wolvoleo

5/24/2026 at 12:17:10 AM

There are indications Embraer might announce a new aircraft at the next Farnborough Airshow, fingers crossed!

by badosu

5/24/2026 at 8:49:46 AM

Boeing spun off United Airlines and P&W for antitrust reasons... Spirit AeroSystems that makes Boeing fuselages as products is likewise a spinoff.

by numpad0

5/23/2026 at 8:09:46 PM

There are really only 2 choices.

There is a third, Embrarer. They have most of the market in small regional jets in some cases, but those are in reality very different than say a 777 or 787.

These two choices are conglomerates of what used to be a much larger set of manufacturers. In short Boeing, Airbus and it's suppliers are basically what is left of all the old big aerospace manufacturers.

by iancmceachern

5/23/2026 at 9:12:56 PM

Indeed. Embraer (Brazil) does jetliners carrying up to around 150 pax. So did Bombardier (Canada), though they sold their C-Series to Airbus (now the Airbus A220). Then there's COMAC (China) and UAC (Russia; also a conglomerate of Sukhoi, Tupolev, etc.).

These compete with the smaller versions of the Airbus A320 family (like the discontinued A318 "Baby Bus") or Boeing B737 family.

So, in that narrow-body and regional jet segment there are a few players.

But in the big wide-body (=2 aisles) long-range jets, there's only Airbus and Boeing.

by FabHK

5/23/2026 at 8:39:18 PM

>There are really only 2 choices.

For private jets there are Gulfstream, Bombardier, Textron, Dassault, and as you said Embraer. I think there was a recent new Entry, Honda from Japan.

by ksec

5/24/2026 at 8:07:38 AM

For private jets, in order of most to least deliveries per year (number per year in parenthesis): Cessna (171) Gulfstream (158) Bombardier (157) Embraer (155) Cirrus (106) Dassult (37) Honda (12)

Which is nothing compared to: 737 (447) 767 (30) 777 (35) 787 (88)

by iancmceachern

5/23/2026 at 8:22:25 PM

These two choices are conglomerates of what used to be a much larger set of manufacturers

This. The entire market has been allowed to be monopolized through mergers and buy-outs. Russia used to have their own aerospace industry (and that fleet was reliable enough to be allowed to fly in Europe) but then Russia happened.

by tremon

5/23/2026 at 8:41:57 PM

>Russia used to have their own aerospace industry (and that fleet was reliable enough to be allowed to fly in Europe) but then Russia happened.

It's absolutely irrelevant what Russia did or could have done here in this industry.

Same with Chinese planes. If they ever manage to make a competitive passenger plane, it will not be allowed certification by US and European authorities purely for political reasons, the same way how their EVs are not allowed for sale in the US or how they aren't allowed to have ASML EUV machines. This isn't a fair game, never was.

The decisions on purchase of aerospace units is 90% (inter-)national politics and only 10% meritocracy, since both Boeing and Airbus are massive defense players making advanced killing machines, and no country wants to directly or indirectly fund the defense industry of their geopolitical rivals.

When a third country needs to chooses between Airbus or Boeing for their flag carrier fleet, they don't objectively compare the operational history and tech specs of Airbus vs Boeing and make the decision based on that, they just ask themselves "do I want to be in bed with EU-France or with Uncle Sam as my main ally and provider for the next 30+ years". Hence why most oil-rich middle eastern states chose Boeing as the US is their main defense provider anyway and don't want to anger them, especially when Donald Orange makes a visit to your state.

That's just how politics works when you operate at that level. Handshakes, dinners and bribes. Always has.

by joe_mamba

5/23/2026 at 9:17:34 PM

Emirates, Qatar, and Etihad all seem to have fleets that are approximately 50/50 between Boeing and Airbus though.

by FabHK

5/23/2026 at 8:55:48 PM

Sensible.

by Sammi

5/24/2026 at 11:59:09 AM

Cost and complexity of certification? At least that was why Mitsubishi MRJ never went into production. They got the first prototype flying in 6 years, then sought to obtain certification for subsequent 9 years through various means before giving up and scrapping all ~10 examples. Kawasaki P-1 that flew in the overlapping timeframe is in production and in service, with IHI made indigenous engines albeit with teething issues, so it's not like planes and engines can't be made by anyone other than existing players. They just can't be sold, and therefore can't be* done.

by numpad0

5/23/2026 at 8:08:54 PM

The Chinese government has spent 18 years and an unknown amount of funds trying to compete:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac

They have delivered 185 aircraft to domestic airlines. Maybe Africa is next?

Note that they so far use engines from western companies - GE and Safran. In fact, the vast majority of their primary suppliers are from outside of China: https://www.csis.org/blogs/trustee-china-hand/chinas-comac-a...

I guess it takes a bit of a war chest to get into this business simply because it isn't very easy.

by lysace

5/23/2026 at 7:50:25 PM

There's probably going to be ongoing attempts to be less reliant on the US while Trump is going on about needing Greenland and the like.

His last odd 'truth' about it was six hours ago https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1166240468099...

by tim333

5/23/2026 at 9:19:11 PM

"Truth Social is currently unavailable in your area"

Pity, in Hong Kong I cannot read the wise words of the king.

by FabHK

5/23/2026 at 9:22:45 PM

You're not missing anything. It was just a dumb picture of Trump's face looming over an unsuspecting Greenlandic town. Ominous but nothing with any news value

by wolvoleo

5/23/2026 at 10:04:07 PM

[dead]

by onetokeoverthe

5/24/2026 at 3:39:27 AM

"Normally he was wont to be about twelve feet from nose to tail, but when he was very depressed, Trump's AI likeness could be anything up to eight hundred yards long."

by hugh-avherald

5/23/2026 at 4:43:31 PM

Good? A bit of competition is good for everybody. Having one vendor for everything leads to many problems.

by zulux

5/23/2026 at 7:11:15 PM

As long as a mad king is ruling over the USA, no US product or service should taint european markets. I fail to see why money should go into companies that are hostile to europeans. Canadians already made that decision months ago (granted, due to the tight coupling of their own market to the USA, this is mega-difficult; most Canadians live on the southern area, aka close to the USA - realistically Canadians can only reduce dependencies, but will never be able to decouple completely, but they had those discussions before, in particular with regards to security. Why invest into a country that became hostile to other countries? Makes indeed no sense. The USA burned all bridges here.)

by shevy-java

5/24/2026 at 1:52:42 AM

Mad king gone + plausible reforms done that preclude another mad king. That's going to take a while.

by dboreham

5/23/2026 at 5:34:21 PM

[dead]

by sltr

5/23/2026 at 11:21:09 PM

[flagged]

by gibber878

5/24/2026 at 1:26:00 AM

The world is moving on from America the damage being done by the worst administration in the history of the country just continues on.

Everyday, a new low…

by Danox

5/23/2026 at 5:40:03 PM

[flagged]

by jsrozner

5/23/2026 at 5:42:40 PM

The text looks AI generated as well.

by Maxion