Re: Boeing > Bombardier
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:41 am
And this is lesson 101 in why duopolies are terrible for capitalism. Bombardier did build a decent product and if given a fair shake probably could build more excellent aircraft that could compete across much larger markets. But one player in the duopoly leveled them with a political tariff, and the other just swallowed their prized asset. Back to two players. This is why it's not a loss for Boeing, yes they compete with airbus but they don't really compete. Both are perfectly happy and profitable given the status quo and neither would know what to do without the other (as they absorb production slack and obscure the fact the industry is not competitive at all). Both get to be national champions and de facto monopolies without getting shit for it because there is always the "threat" of the other guy. Don't buy into it, we would have much better planes and the global airline industry would be much better off if we had multiple producers who actually had to compete for every market...rather than two producers who can barley produce their current order books and have no real incentive to push to hard and change the status quo. This is capitalism in 2017, just about every industry is consolidating it's way to this perfectly mediocre equilibrium, aided by governments of course.