@@slamdunk118 It's safe but expensive to use in commercial. Just look at the maintenance costs on fighter jets. You would need government to subsidize it.
@@slamdunk118 It's safe like other... But not efficient... Why commercial jet engine don't use supersonic engine, because supersonic engine need more fuel with higher hot air to cool air ratio... Even without any cool air output... Commercial jet engine use higher cool air output than hot air output... So that's why its not as fast as supersonic jet engine but its efficient in fuel...
If you're lucky enough to be in the cockpit you already know what type it is. It would be better if an outside visual reference like how the join between the fuselage and the vertical tail differs. And as far as flying being safe, we're not just talking financial costs. We're also talking human cost. Thousands upon thousands of people have died to allow us to learn from our mistakes. The title doesn't work either. This is more history than why this is. There are a couple of other small things they didn't quite get right. Other than that this is actually a pretty accurate video for a news source. I'm impressed considering the source.
CNBC lady: ...the “seven seven seven” x Me and all aviation fans: *cries in aviation* It’s pronounced *TRIPLE SEVEN* you guys don’t know anything about Aviation just leave it to Wendover .
In 5 years ELON MUSK Comes into the Airline Industry with people from SpaceX and Tesla Team to create a new company to streamline and vertically integrate and manufacture supersonic Electric plane at half the cost of boeing or airbus and take over the airline industry sales and make it environmentally friendly.
3:55 that’s one of the main reasons why airbus Air France went missing in the Atlantic Ocean, because the stupid joystick was on the side of the co pilot and it was lifted up. The captain didn’t realize that at the time and by the time they figured out what was the problem was they already diving into the ocean
Not at all it was 100% pilot error if you can't recognize the signs of a basic stall you shouldn't be flying anything the F-16, F-22 and F-35 have side sticks
Good video but I chuckled a little when they said "its a well regulated industry.." It very well could be but in light of recent events and revelations, it is a well timed ironic comment :)
Nice video. I would have liked to see it take a minute or so to explain how companies that had dominated the airliner market ended up disappearing. Douglas (/McDonnell-Douglas), Lockheed, Convair, etc. These are companies that made the iconic DC-3 - DC-10, the Constellation, Elvis's "Lisa Marie", etc. Douglas even made the first Air Force One, flying the president around, which was replaced by the Lockheed Constellation. Boeing had been WAY BEHIND the leaders. It was the military contracts during the transition to the Jet Age that leapfrogged the company into the lead. And even then, Douglas & Convair & Lockheed still gave them stiff competition for well over a decade after entering the Jet Age. Boeing eventually swallowed the competition. And the story in Europe has similarities. Airbus did not come out of nowhere.
@@clivethefuhrer822, au contraire. The DC-8 & the DC-9 were worthy successors to the iconic DC-3. They gave stiff competition to the Boeing 707. The DC-10 and the L-1011 were worthy competitors to the Boeing 747, after Lockheed enjoyed a period of dominating the skies with the Constellation as the first airliner with a pressurized cabin to attain a significant measure of success. (Boeing was first, with an extensively modified B-17 bomber adapted into an airliner, building only 10 before WWII caused an abrupt switch in priorities.) Companies like Douglas, Convair & Lockheed did not simply just stop making airliners. What happened was that Boeing made airliners that were marginally superior to the competition. And in some cases, like the 747, significantly superior. So what happened is what Adam Smith would describe as these other companies getting spanked out of the market by the "invisible hand". Airlines time and again would select Boeing over these other options. So orders dried up. They became weak to the point where Boeing could buy them out. And when it was looking like Boeing was positioned to corner a monopoly, Airbus started cranking out worthy designs. And once again, the invisible hand lifted Airbus to a status that eventually equaled Boeing. Both companies getting HUGE piles of cash from their respective governments to help prop them up. So the hand on both sides of the Atlantic was not actually purely invisible.
so by your logic CNBC should NEVER EVER make a video about the aviation industry, just because there is Wendover channel that's already making videos on this topic? how interesting...
@Cumulus Humilis He's not saying that planes don't mostly follow a similar concept and design principle. He's referencing China's hilarious lack of even trying to appear as if they're innovating, with products such as the Polystation, the GameChild, airPhone 4, Michealsoft Binbows, Star Wart, Sunbucks coffee, King Burgur and Pizza Huh.
The Concorde wasn't at fault for its crash, it was a DC-10's fault. A broken part of the DC-10 had fallen on the runway just before the Concorde had taken off from the same runway five minutes ago.
@@lastblueride5 People just had this misconception that the plane wasn't safe. The crash just reassured those people that had those feelings even though facts didnt back them up
well technically it was the DC-10s fault, but it was Air Frances fault the plane crashed. The Tires when they hit the scrap from the DC-10 exploded, and tore into the Concords wing, something that wouldnt of happened had they keep maintenance up to scratch
atif waheed. You are mixing two topics. Commercial supersonic aviation was short lived. But his point was, Concord, one aircraft model, did serve for 30 years which is NOT too short, considering average life for a commercial airliner is approximately 20 years.
They are also the largest exporter in the United States and have been for years, so they are well deserving of the treatment they get from the government, as they are one of the greatest companies we have.
So defense contracts are now considered subsidies? That is a very strange definition of the word subsidy. Well in that case it wouldn't be Boeing that's the worst offender, it would be LockMart.
How did it get to be a duopoly? Why could the commercial aircraft industry not support a host of companies like McDonnell Douglas,, Convair, Lockheed, DeHaviland, etc.? That's what I was expecting this video to be.
Gold Winger, that’s fairly simple. It was pure competition. There simply wasn’t the demand for so many aircraft manufacturers. Airlines prefer a single or dual manufactured fleet, that just saves tremendously in cost (training, repairs, maintenance and overall flexibility). Boeing and Airbus offer a wide range of aircraft families, so one brand of jets can basically fly all routes. Something that Lockheed, Convair and DH did not offer. For MDD, they where struck by low profits due to heavy competition on their DC-10&MD-11, resulting in an easy takeover by Boeing. You have to realize that with such low profit margins everything needs to be squeezed to perfection. The issue with new emerging aircraft is the simple lack of knowledge. Take the SSJ100 as an example, an overall good performer, but just due to inexperience in maintenance related tasks, repairs take long and therefore operating them is much more expensive. Imo, the only way to break it, is by creating an revolutionary aircraft that solves the climate impact of flight. (Something of which supersonic flight is the exact opposite)
@@heavyizthacrown-5842 the most helpful way of thinking about it is economies of scale. You are only competitive in the aircraft manufacturing industry if you research and build a huge number of planes. If instead, you are a smaller company, that'll halve the number of planes sold, which would require the manufacturer to almost double the price to regain investment costs. This price increase instantly makes you uncompetitive. Only Boeing and Airbus size companies can truly compete given the size of the market.
"If it ain't a Boeing, I aint't going" :D Especially with no yoke on Airbus planes, nope I don't think so. What the hell will a pilot do, start pressing buttons in case of an emergency dive?! It's laughable.
I hate lobbying. The idea of a corporation giving money to government officials to go against the public (which is what our government is SUPPOSE TO DO WORK FOR THE PUBLIC) is despicable and should be illegal.
When you work, you discover another face of lobbyism. The state administration has no technical competence. Corporations negotiate between themselves and the government work as an arbiter. Also, everyone who worked on technical lobbyism will tell you how NGO lobbyists are a bunch a stupid people who have no idea what they are talking about.
I feel bad for all the people stomped in the way of the duopoly: Bombardier, McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed Martin, Ilyushin, Antonnov, Dassault, and more :/
Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas and it nearly ruined Boeing. Ilyushin made inefficient uneconomical planes. Antonov did the same except with cargo planes. Dassault, in a classic French move made a plane that would only really make sense over the 737 for airlines based in France and other Central European airlines. Lockheed Martin is mainly military but when they did try to make a commercial jet they made an Airbus style mistake and did a terrible job estimating demand and trusting Rolls Royce to make an engine.
@@alexandrlarson7252 Less that they trusted Rolls Royce to make an engine and more that they trusted Rolls Royce to make a new engine and actually deliver it on time. Their actual jet was amazing, but due to the British, the DC-10 came out first.
I hate the way cnbc criticise the concorde. It lived a long time from 1976 to 2003 that's quite a while. I am skeptical of a supersonic aircraft coming from the USA I doubt we shall see that.
The Concorde flew right over me and it was the most awesome sound i have ever heard. Jim breuer explains it here. ua-cam.com/video/k4vM75rSPJs/v-deo.html
@@romanbaranovichi5375 Air France had some financial problems with it, but British Airways made a tidy profit off of it. The future was looking bleak for it though as the cost of maintenance on what were then old aircraft was increasing. That British Airways and Air France pretty much got the aircraft for free definitely made them profitable.
I enjoy flying both Boeing and Airbus jets. I've flown the Boeing 787 on American, United, and Air Canada, and will be flying the Airbus A-350 on Delta in a couple of months. In reality, they are pretty much the same...if anything, it's the airlines that operate them at treat passengers differently and ask for different design specs (like wider seats, more legroom, greater pitch, etc.)
BoooB lmao people said the same thing about Japanese cars when they first came. I doubt if you ever travel, or been to China in the recent years. Let s see in another 20years.
@@gyehlove6420 I just want to know if you have been to China in the recent years? if you haven't you should. It will open your eyes. or maybe change your mind too. It took China 50 years to get to where it is now. Only 50 years!!!!
@@kexia I don't have any interest in China. And even if I went there, my opinion wouldn't change . I hate the fact that almost everything is made in China now, people are losing jobs because of that. I'm also not a big fan of Chinese people, they don't have manners, also, they're not hygienic.
@@gyehlove6420 might I ask what nationality are you? the statements you just made are very close minded. I dont know if you are just trolling around or being serious.
So many bad historical clips in here, showing a ton of Douglas, Doriner, Grumman planes... C'mon CNBC, use some historical fact checkers. There are plenty of stock clips of actual Boeing planes.
Fun fact: The Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde had technology and features that were transferred to Airbus airplanes, and the Concorde eventually became technically supported by Airbus, as Aérospatiale became a stakeholder, and later part, of Airbus. In fact, the French Concordes and the A300 were both built/assembled in Toulouse, home of Sud Aviation, one of the predecessors of Aérospatiale and Airbus.
Maybe the reason there is only 2 major air commercial jet airliner makers is because it takes alot of money and R&D in order to bring a jet to market. Not to mention the goverment hoops and loops that you got jump through in order get your plane approved for manufacturing as a plane crashing is a big no no. Besides who as a commercial airplane carrier like Delta or United want to own 5 or 6 different planes from 5 or 6 different manufacturers just means alot more hassle to get replacement and new parts for the fleet of planes....
Don't be fooled by list price of planes. List price is like MSRP for car. Planes are sold at big discounts. Actual delivery price might be around 20% less if not more.
The airplane at 1:17-1:20 is not a Boeing airplane; it's a B-18 Bolo, manufactured by rival Douglas Airplane Company and based on Douglas' then-successful DC-2 civilian airliner.
5:55 “If you consider that airlines today carry three billion passengers with a B, aviation globally and kills fewer than 500 of them” That was worded terribly
Not true! Boeing is a Government Contractor! Go back to school and get an education before you open you big mouth! The five country consortium of Airbus is subsidized by those country origins! Boeing does not receive any US government subsidies.
I wouldn't say that it was very incorrect factually. There are errors but it's better than most. The problem is that it doesn't tell us why, but more of what has happened with the two companies.
Feels like they’ve skipped a ton why 707 became dominant and history behind airbus which began as Caravelle and concord manufacturer sud aviation partnering with BAC which is currently BAE systems and why McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed gave up on the market.
McDonnell Douglas did not give up on the market like Lockheed did. McDonnell Douglas was bought by Boeing due to how the economic market was running in the 1990's. Historically it's been speculated that McDonnell Douglas may have had a reverse economic advantage to buy Boeing at the tail end of the first 747 flying... cash flow!
I really enjoy travelling domestic flights in a Dash 8, watching the landing gear emerge from under the engine is spectacular. The A320 is incredibly boring by comparison. However, for intercontinental flight I'd expect Airbus or Boeing. Boring but tried and tested.
Airbus likes competition help improve and develop. Boeing fears competition so buys the companies over. Sad truth but Airbus is way ahead with technology.
The statistic comes from 4 Billion passenger deboardings not 4 Billion different people. Meaning if you have one connection on your way from New York to Los Angeles you count as two people that year.
Concorde" short-lived" flew from 1969 - 2003 not that short-lived as most of the aircraft were over 25 years when retired and the loss of only one aircraft in the service life of the Aircraft .it had its issues but they were rather Graceful.
That guy talked about air safety like it was amazing, only 500 deaths. Like that's not actually the record for safest travel. High Speed Rail hasn't had a single death since 2011 and the oldest high speed rail network, the Japanese Shinkansen has not had a single death for it's over 50 years of operation. It's kinda impossible to beat perfect.
That comes with high-speed rail running the ground. It's much slower though, pretty much financially impossible to do over long stretches of water (or rather under) and more expensive to construct and run. It's often a lot cheaper and quicker in Japan to travel by air than by high-speed rail (including time to get to an airport and go through security). That's provided the place even has high-speed rail.
"Its definitely a well regulated industry, I don't think there's any question about that" - "expert" Samual Engel. Two month later...Boeing gets exposed that it's essentially regulating itself on safety lol.
The reason budget airline don't switch manufacturers is not because of it being expensive. In fact it is to make more money than most other airlines. Southwest only flies the 737 and Easy jet only flies the A319, A320, and A321. This is so that ground crews and flight staff only have to be trained on one type of aircraft thus lowering the amount of specialized workers they have to hire, and reducing the amount of time they have to spend training their employees.
There is so much that's wrong with this video, here are two. - 4 billion customers, not 4 billion unique individuals -lots of people don't just use Boeing and Airbus jets. Embraer jets are very big in regional activities for example.
You forgot the Russian Sukhoi Superjet and MC 21. Russian commercial aviation sector isn't progressing because of US sanctions. Its a strategy of the west. Won't last long though.
Hey the 747 did its job excellently. Its served since 1970, and its served valiantly ever since. And the A380 arrived a little too late to become really successful. Unfortunately more fuel efficient twin engines are the thing. nothing against them, but seeing the 747 is something Ive always wanted to see. Ive never grown near airports and the closest one probably can't handle anything larger than a 767, so I've never seen the famed 747 people gawk at.
@kenjryker Try again. Boeing introduced the worlds first pressurized airliner in 1938, the 307 stratoliner. Boeing pioneered the NOW STANDARD configuration of swept wing pod mounted engines with the B-47 at a time when Dehavilland was still using wood in their air frame construction in the late 1940s and then again with the B-52 . They did'nt need to "stand on the shoulders of the British" as you put it. The 707 and Comet share absolutely nothing. The Comet was the first commercial jetliner, but the 707 was the first SUCCESSFUL commercial jetliner. DH did it first, but Boeing did it right.
Airbus is basically a French/German company; the whole management is french and german. The weight of others countries is not significant. Spain and U.K. are production sites.
Amazigh Blue Azul - Anti Mafia - Anti ANPD I’m sorry but I disagree, the FACT is that Airbus is owned by these 4 countries, period, like EASA, its parent company. China and USA are the production sites.
@@freewal There is actually 5 nations with a stake in Airbus, it was originally the UK, France and West Germany but today it is the UK, France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands. France and Germany own the bulk because the UK pulled out but then bought back in and has a similar stake to Spain and the Netherlands.
@@krashd Actually i worked 16 years for this company. Yes it's an an european company, and UK, Spain, Netherlands are sharheolder of Airbus. But my point was : which countries are able to take decisions in Airbus ? Where are the power centres (geographically) ? From which countries come from the management ? Answer : France and Germany. Like the European Union, it's these two countries which have leaded the principles of Airbus.
Actually good reporting on aviation from the media! It is good for the average person to understand. Yeah sure there are minor mistakes but they are more then negligible. Keep it up!
Or "If it ain't a Boeing, I aint't going" :D Especially with no yoke on Airbus planes, nope I don't think so. What the hell will a pilot do, start pressing buttons in case of an emergency dive?! It's laughable.
It seems like Airbus and Boeing can't be stopped by any other manufacturers! Only Airbus can stop Boeing and only Boeing can stop Airbus. Right now, Airbus is winning in the battle against Boeing. Good Job Airbus
4 billion people did not fly last year. 4 billion flight tickets were sold and used, many by repeat customers.
Even if it was about 1 billion people thats still an amazing achievement.
Schoolboy error
matt taylor it's like saying 2000 cars crossed a bridge in a year but half were the same cars on different days... Same thing
Ye some people travel 2-3x per week
@Jose Andrade Not all of these people came from Georgia, though you are properly right.
"Will supersonic jets challenge Boeing and Airbus"?
* checks calendar to make sure it's 2019 not 1969 *
Evan Posocco or 2169 :)
lol I know right, super sonic technology is not safe
There was no Airbus 1969.
@@slamdunk118
It's safe but expensive to use in commercial. Just look at the maintenance costs on fighter jets. You would need government to subsidize it.
@@slamdunk118 It's safe like other... But not efficient... Why commercial jet engine don't use supersonic engine, because supersonic engine need more fuel with higher hot air to cool air ratio... Even without any cool air output...
Commercial jet engine use higher cool air output than hot air output... So that's why its not as fast as supersonic jet engine but its efficient in fuel...
*Wendover Productions: Breathing heavily*
LOL
"safety comes with a hefty price tag"
Then Boeing Max MCAS scandal happened...
carol, that was because "Boing" wanted to "cheap out" (bad software and too large engines for the wing size)...
Chevy and Ford? Todays Chevy and Ford? I would rather walk... (Mechanic)
4:23 sees a 747 in an "All Airbus Fleet"
If you're lucky enough to be in the cockpit you already know what type it is. It would be better if an outside visual reference like how the join between the fuselage and the vertical tail differs. And as far as flying being safe, we're not just talking financial costs. We're also talking human cost. Thousands upon thousands of people have died to allow us to learn from our mistakes. The title doesn't work either. This is more history than why this is. There are a couple of other small things they didn't quite get right. Other than that this is actually a pretty accurate video for a news source. I'm impressed considering the source.
CNBC lady: ...the “seven seven seven” x
Me and all aviation fans: *cries in aviation*
It’s pronounced *TRIPLE SEVEN* you guys don’t know anything about Aviation just leave it to Wendover .
Wait... that was a 747 shown for the "Airbus only" fleet example. Sweet irony...
Is it wrong that I only knew Airbus and Boeing?
Wait until Elon Musk does something
*goes bankrupt*
@@concert_band *high wears off realizes he's been dancing around naked in an abandoned factory*
@@trevoncowen9198 poor peasant who can't think beyond present. Elon is pushing humanity forward unlike you.
Elon Musk probably won't go beyond what he has currently. Eg. SpaceX, Tesla, Boring etc.
i though tesla had a lot of problems.
Vancouver, represent.
In 5 years ELON MUSK Comes into the Airline Industry with people from SpaceX and Tesla Team to create a new company to streamline and vertically integrate and manufacture supersonic Electric plane at half the cost of boeing or airbus and take over the airline industry sales and make it environmentally friendly.
My favourite plane of all time is the Boeing 747 And I'm trying to become a pilot of the Boeing 747
3:55 that’s one of the main reasons why airbus Air France went missing in the Atlantic Ocean, because the stupid joystick was on the side of the co pilot and it was lifted up. The captain didn’t realize that at the time and by the time they figured out what was the problem was they already diving into the ocean
Not at all it was 100% pilot error if you can't recognize the signs of a basic stall you shouldn't be flying anything the F-16, F-22 and F-35 have side sticks
Airbus, Boeing, doesn’t matter what aircraft it is, the news will always say they’re on the T A R M A C.
12:18 Dat angle of attack tho
I don't think people will pay those fees for concorde anymore. Now you can just skype halfway around the world without paying those fees.
It's the extremely high entry costs.
Good video but I chuckled a little when they said "its a well regulated industry.." It very well could be but in light of recent events and revelations, it is a well timed ironic comment :)
I like Embraer (?)
Thank you for this video...Yes, I have been apart of Boeing for many years....
way to skip over WW2 which is just a little important when it comes to the formation and domination of Boeing
Fun fact the 777X has foldable winglets
They are wingtips, not winglets...
Nice video. I would have liked to see it take a minute or so to explain how companies that had dominated the airliner market ended up disappearing. Douglas (/McDonnell-Douglas), Lockheed, Convair, etc. These are companies that made the iconic DC-3 - DC-10, the Constellation, Elvis's "Lisa Marie", etc. Douglas even made the first Air Force One, flying the president around, which was replaced by the Lockheed Constellation.
Boeing had been WAY BEHIND the leaders. It was the military contracts during the transition to the Jet Age that leapfrogged the company into the lead. And even then, Douglas & Convair & Lockheed still gave them stiff competition for well over a decade after entering the Jet Age. Boeing eventually swallowed the competition.
And the story in Europe has similarities. Airbus did not come out of nowhere.
Da Hawk simply stopped making planes
@@clivethefuhrer822, au contraire. The DC-8 & the DC-9 were worthy successors to the iconic DC-3. They gave stiff competition to the Boeing 707. The DC-10 and the L-1011 were worthy competitors to the Boeing 747, after Lockheed enjoyed a period of dominating the skies with the Constellation as the first airliner with a pressurized cabin to attain a significant measure of success. (Boeing was first, with an extensively modified B-17 bomber adapted into an airliner, building only 10 before WWII caused an abrupt switch in priorities.)
Companies like Douglas, Convair & Lockheed did not simply just stop making airliners. What happened was that Boeing made airliners that were marginally superior to the competition. And in some cases, like the 747, significantly superior. So what happened is what Adam Smith would describe as these other companies getting spanked out of the market by the "invisible hand".
Airlines time and again would select Boeing over these other options. So orders dried up. They became weak to the point where Boeing could buy them out. And when it was looking like Boeing was positioned to corner a monopoly, Airbus started cranking out worthy designs. And once again, the invisible hand lifted Airbus to a status that eventually equaled Boeing. Both companies getting HUGE piles of cash from their respective governments to help prop them up. So the hand on both sides of the Atlantic was not actually purely invisible.
What about sukhoi?
I actually flew in a casena...
Boeing seven seven seven eh, kill me!
Is Trololo playing on the background?
Don’t forget bombardier and embraer own the very small segment.
Anchor Inc Did u even watch the video?
Lol yes but it’s about which markets you look at, i never contested about a320s and 737.....I commented about the segment below that!
But Boeing owns most of Embraer and Airbus Bombardier
Yes! But that doesn’t change the fact 😅 it’s a fact am not trying to hurt your feelings man 😇
How bout when discussing differences talk about how airbuses use a smaller rear stabilizer to reduce drag but in result causes stability issues
Dolphin H Who said it causes stability issues?
Stepping on Wendovers turf I see.
Wendover would have correct facts and images..
@@safye4 and he would have a more entertaining video
not even registering in his radar.
and he would have nice 3d art modelling than this
so by your logic CNBC should NEVER EVER make a video about the aviation industry, just because there is Wendover channel that's already making videos on this topic?
how interesting...
"Spirit and frontier only operate Airbus"
*Proceeds to show a picture of a Boeing 747 in the background*
“Safety comes with a hefty price tag” well, looks like Boeing shopped during the sale... #mcas
MCAS
May Crash Any Second
MCAS
Money Comes Above Safety
MCAS
May cause abrupt suicide
MCAS
My controls are stuck
Help....
Waiting for chinese knock offs; Boink and Airfuss
Jajs
@Cumulus Humilis He's not saying that planes don't mostly follow a similar concept and design principle. He's referencing China's hilarious lack of even trying to appear as if they're innovating, with products such as the Polystation, the GameChild, airPhone 4, Michealsoft Binbows, Star Wart, Sunbucks coffee, King Burgur and Pizza Huh.
hahhahaha
It will be Choeing and Chibus.
@@mukundthorat5672 GACHIIBASS
The Concorde wasn't at fault for its crash, it was a DC-10's fault. A broken part of the DC-10 had fallen on the runway just before the Concorde had taken off from the same runway five minutes ago.
But the crash increased peoples concerns about the planes safety even if it wasn't at its own fault
nickskier1 how did it raise concerns about the Concorde’s safety? The plane was not the cause of the crash
@@lastblueride5 People just had this misconception that the plane wasn't safe. The crash just reassured those people that had those feelings even though facts didnt back them up
well technically it was the DC-10s fault, but it was Air Frances fault the plane crashed. The Tires when they hit the scrap from the DC-10 exploded, and tore into the Concords wing, something that wouldnt of happened had they keep maintenance up to scratch
It's just always the DC-10
You said "the Concorde was short lived", hey, what?
The Concorde flew for almost 30 years, how exactly is that short lived???
There is a new concorde coming out soon. The original concorde is owned by British airways and they refuse to sell the rights
It is short lived tho... 30 year is not big deal in business model who's rivals are 90+ year old
atif waheed. You are mixing two topics. Commercial supersonic aviation was short lived. But his point was, Concord, one aircraft model, did serve for 30 years which is NOT too short, considering average life for a commercial airliner is approximately 20 years.
it's kinda ironic how Boeing always whines about gov subsidies others receive while they are the single worst offender
There's a difference between subsidizing (giving money) and buying weapons (spending money) but Boeing is a monopoly
Payment for aircrafts are no subsidies.
They are also the largest exporter in the United States and have been for years, so they are well deserving of the treatment they get from the government, as they are one of the greatest companies we have.
Boeing gets the contracts and bombardier just got the subsidy
So defense contracts are now considered subsidies? That is a very strange definition of the word subsidy. Well in that case it wouldn't be Boeing that's the worst offender, it would be LockMart.
avgeeks breathing heavily while watching this video
Fingers ready at the keyboard just in case there is a false fact in the video 😂
@@OLGMC lol
How did it get to be a duopoly? Why could the commercial aircraft industry not support a host of companies like McDonnell Douglas,, Convair, Lockheed, DeHaviland, etc.? That's what I was expecting this video to be.
Gold Winger, that’s fairly simple. It was pure competition. There simply wasn’t the demand for so many aircraft manufacturers. Airlines prefer a single or dual manufactured fleet, that just saves tremendously in cost (training, repairs, maintenance and overall flexibility). Boeing and Airbus offer a wide range of aircraft families, so one brand of jets can basically fly all routes. Something that Lockheed, Convair and DH did not offer. For MDD, they where struck by low profits due to heavy competition on their DC-10&MD-11, resulting in an easy takeover by Boeing. You have to realize that with such low profit margins everything needs to be squeezed to perfection.
The issue with new emerging aircraft is the simple lack of knowledge. Take the SSJ100 as an example, an overall good performer, but just due to inexperience in maintenance related tasks, repairs take long and therefore operating them is much more expensive.
Imo, the only way to break it, is by creating an revolutionary aircraft that solves the climate impact of flight. (Something of which supersonic flight is the exact opposite)
Gold Winger *EXACTLY!* And we didn’t get an answer. I learned nothing here.
Wasn't McDonnell Douglas bought by Boeing.
@@heavyizthacrown-5842 the most helpful way of thinking about it is economies of scale. You are only competitive in the aircraft manufacturing industry if you research and build a huge number of planes. If instead, you are a smaller company, that'll halve the number of planes sold, which would require the manufacturer to almost double the price to regain investment costs. This price increase instantly makes you uncompetitive. Only Boeing and Airbus size companies can truly compete given the size of the market.
boing bought mcd
Next video up: Why Airbus Dominates The Sky.....
@ Zemli Drakona: 👍😂🤣🤣🤣
oooof poor boeing
@@anonymousfox345 Seems like buying McDonnell Douglas has cursed them
Because boeing made big poopy in its trousers - again
"If it ain't a Boeing, I aint't going" :D
Especially with no yoke on Airbus planes, nope I don't think so.
What the hell will a pilot do, start pressing buttons in case of an emergency dive?! It's laughable.
Everybody: omg new aibus plane. Omg new boeing plane.
Embraer, bombardier, ATR: you guys mocking us right ?
Concorde’s days were short lived *lasted 27 YEARS*
*34 (it's last flight was in 2003)
But how long did the production last?
@@stefancodrin from 65 to 79
I hate lobbying. The idea of a corporation giving money to government officials to go against the public (which is what our government is SUPPOSE TO DO WORK FOR THE PUBLIC) is despicable and should be illegal.
I agree, big companies own the government
Lobbying is the legal word for bribe!
It's the same as alcohol. Better to regulate than benning it.
That's just the way it is, and probably always will be. He who's closest to the fire will stay warm... as they say. ;D
When you work, you discover another face of lobbyism. The state administration has no technical competence. Corporations negotiate between themselves and the government work as an arbiter. Also, everyone who worked on technical lobbyism will tell you how NGO lobbyists are a bunch a stupid people who have no idea what they are talking about.
Did anyone notice at 2:43 they said "they drew up plans for a short hall European Airbus" THEY SHOWED DRAWINGS OF A BOEING 747!!! WTF
"Spirit and frontier only operate Airbus"
Proceeds to show a picture of a Boeing 747 in the background
I love how talked about boeings history but left out McDonald Douglas
I feel bad for all the people stomped in the way of the duopoly: Bombardier, McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed Martin, Ilyushin, Antonnov, Dassault, and more :/
Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas and it nearly ruined Boeing. Ilyushin made inefficient uneconomical planes. Antonov did the same except with cargo planes. Dassault, in a classic French move made a plane that would only really make sense over the 737 for airlines based in France and other Central European airlines. Lockheed Martin is mainly military but when they did try to make a commercial jet they made an Airbus style mistake and did a terrible job estimating demand and trusting Rolls Royce to make an engine.
@@alexandrlarson7252 Less that they trusted Rolls Royce to make an engine and more that they trusted Rolls Royce to make a new engine and actually deliver it on time. Their actual jet was amazing, but due to the British, the DC-10 came out first.
@Samuel Wang I know that the engine that they eventually provided was good, but it was so late that it ruined the L-1011’s chances against the dc-10.
LM is doing just fine.
Clipper1094 they are, but not in the market of passenger aircraft
I hate the way cnbc criticise the concorde. It lived a long time from 1976 to 2003 that's quite a while. I am skeptical of a supersonic aircraft coming from the USA I doubt we shall see that.
And the crash was caused by another aircraft that lost a part on the runway.
Agreed. It's such a small, niche market - I think like 1% - that could actually afford to fly it...
It was a massive loss leader at best, certainly made no money in operation, and wasn't even that comfortable.
The Concorde flew right over me and it was the most awesome sound i have ever heard. Jim breuer explains it here. ua-cam.com/video/k4vM75rSPJs/v-deo.html
@@romanbaranovichi5375 Air France had some financial problems with it, but British Airways made a tidy profit off of it. The future was looking bleak for it though as the cost of maintenance on what were then old aircraft was increasing. That British Airways and Air France pretty much got the aircraft for free definitely made them profitable.
It’s really cessna that rules the skies
Hj Aviation In general aviation, yes; but we’re talking commercial aviation here.
beernpizzalover haha I know
i flew only skyhawk and corporate gulfstream and embraer in 2017... the only year with no boeing or airbus.
Cessna is smaller than Uber for year on year growth
nah 600kts Hot air Ballons rule the skies
I enjoy flying both Boeing and Airbus jets. I've flown the Boeing 787 on American, United, and Air Canada, and will be flying the Airbus A-350 on Delta in a couple of months. In reality, they are pretty much the same...if anything, it's the airlines that operate them at treat passengers differently and ask for different design specs (like wider seats, more legroom, greater pitch, etc.)
My ass fits perfectly on the a320neo, but hey every pilot has their preferences 😄
Say thripple 7 not 777
Dylan Power
Easy there, Mike Tyson
Why, bombardier way to go
THripple??
Ok the thripple 7 is a good airplane.
Triple 7, 75, 76, etc that’s how to did it at ATL
2019: I'm about to end Boeing's whole career..
2020: I'm about to end the whole industry.
2021: I'm about to end the whole humanity's career
Yeeah... Not gonna put my ass in a chinese aircraft... Ever!
BoooB lmao people said the same thing about Japanese cars when they first came. I doubt if you ever travel, or been to China in the recent years. Let s see in another 20years.
@@kexia
You can never compare Japanese made to Chinese made LOL I would never fly with a Chinese aircraft either
@@gyehlove6420 I just want to know if you have been to China in the recent years? if you haven't you should. It will open your eyes. or maybe change your mind too. It took China 50 years to get to where it is now. Only 50 years!!!!
@@kexia I don't have any interest in China. And even if I went there, my opinion wouldn't change . I hate the fact that almost everything is made in China now, people are losing jobs because of that. I'm also not a big fan of Chinese people, they don't have manners, also, they're not hygienic.
@@gyehlove6420 might I ask what nationality are you? the statements you just made are very close minded. I dont know if you are just trolling around or being serious.
Duopoly you say?
Corona: How's about Nopoly
So many bad historical clips in here, showing a ton of Douglas, Doriner, Grumman planes... C'mon CNBC, use some historical fact checkers. There are plenty of stock clips of actual Boeing planes.
Lol they’re talking about China but @10:01 literally says Singapore
Fun fact: The Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde had technology and features that were transferred to Airbus airplanes, and the Concorde eventually became technically supported by Airbus, as Aérospatiale became a stakeholder, and later part, of Airbus. In fact, the French Concordes and the A300 were both built/assembled in Toulouse, home of Sud Aviation, one of the predecessors of Aérospatiale and Airbus.
Maybe the reason there is only 2 major air commercial jet airliner makers is because it takes alot of money and R&D in order to bring a jet to market. Not to mention the goverment hoops and loops that you got jump through in order get your plane approved for manufacturing as a plane crashing is a big no no. Besides who as a commercial airplane carrier like Delta or United want to own 5 or 6 different planes from 5 or 6 different manufacturers just means alot more hassle to get replacement and new parts for the fleet of planes....
Don't be fooled by list price of planes. List price is like MSRP for car. Planes are sold at big discounts. Actual delivery price might be around 20% less if not more.
The airplane at 1:17-1:20 is not a Boeing airplane; it's a B-18 Bolo, manufactured by rival Douglas Airplane Company and based on Douglas' then-successful DC-2 civilian airliner.
5:55 “If you consider that airlines today carry three billion passengers with a B, aviation globally and kills fewer than 500 of them”
That was worded terribly
Both companies receive huge government subsidies.
Not true! Boeing is a Government Contractor! Go back to school and get an education before you open you big mouth!
The five country consortium of Airbus is subsidized by those country origins! Boeing does not receive any US government subsidies.
@@votes-haveconsequences2165 lul
@@votes-haveconsequences2165 Yeeah... That's why Boeing had a contract with iag and Airbus had no idea a about it, commonwhealth power...
Aircraft economics has got to be the most interesting and unintuitive thing ever
4:20 puts a 747 when mentioning airbus.
Reason: POLITICS
You clearly have to do more research...
Oh please, do enlighten us with your knowledge.
He’s right, there are a large amount of errors in this.
I wouldn't say that it was very incorrect factually. There are errors but it's better than most. The problem is that it doesn't tell us why, but more of what has happened with the two companies.
You left out half the details of why Airbus took over controlling share of Bombardier!
Feels like they’ve skipped a ton why 707 became dominant and history behind airbus which began as Caravelle and concord manufacturer sud aviation partnering with BAC which is currently BAE systems and why McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed gave up on the market.
McDonnell Douglas did not give up on the market like Lockheed did. McDonnell Douglas was bought by Boeing due to how the economic market was running in the 1990's. Historically it's been speculated that McDonnell Douglas may have had a reverse economic advantage to buy Boeing at the tail end of the first 747 flying... cash flow!
votes- have consequences huh interesting. Wonder what would have happened if MD bought Boeing during the 747 crash
I think it's time for Toyota and Honda make commercial planes.
Honda does make corporate jets.
@@stephenh5944 and mitsubishi
I really enjoy travelling domestic flights in a Dash 8, watching the landing gear emerge from under the engine is spectacular. The A320 is incredibly boring by comparison. However, for intercontinental flight I'd expect Airbus or Boeing. Boring but tried and tested.
Airbus likes competition help improve and develop. Boeing fears competition so buys the companies over. Sad truth but Airbus is way ahead with technology.
Waseem Sam fax
Good truth actually since airbus is great!
As a plane enthusiast, this was very fun to watch and you did a good job.
I got as far as 4 billion people flew last year and quit watching
The statistic comes from 4 Billion passenger deboardings not 4 Billion different people. Meaning if you have one connection on your way from New York to Los Angeles you count as two people that year.
Concorde" short-lived" flew from 1969 - 2003 not that short-lived as most of the aircraft were over 25 years when retired and the loss of only one aircraft in the service life of the Aircraft .it had its issues but they were rather Graceful.
5:08 It is not 7-7-7, triple 7 (777) is the most common and better-sounding way to say it.
That guy talked about air safety like it was amazing, only 500 deaths. Like that's not actually the record for safest travel. High Speed Rail hasn't had a single death since 2011 and the oldest high speed rail network, the Japanese Shinkansen has not had a single death for it's over 50 years of operation. It's kinda impossible to beat perfect.
That comes with high-speed rail running the ground.
It's much slower though, pretty much financially impossible to do over long stretches of water (or rather under) and more expensive to construct and run. It's often a lot cheaper and quicker in Japan to travel by air than by high-speed rail (including time to get to an airport and go through security). That's provided the place even has high-speed rail.
As a shareholder of $BA and $EADSY this makes me happy
@Coloredspaces
An airbus A350-1000ulr is going to be made soon. Probably in the late 2019 or early 2020. Probably a Neo Engine Option(Neo)
Kerezone hope GYG
"Its definitely a well regulated industry, I don't think there's any question about that" - "expert" Samual Engel. Two month later...Boeing gets exposed that it's essentially regulating itself on safety lol.
Please do your homework CNBC, majority of the info is misleading and wrong.
The reason budget airline don't switch manufacturers is not because of it being expensive. In fact it is to make more money than most other airlines. Southwest only flies the 737 and Easy jet only flies the A319, A320, and A321. This is so that ground crews and flight staff only have to be trained on one type of aircraft thus lowering the amount of specialized workers they have to hire, and reducing the amount of time they have to spend training their employees.
Noob Slayer so in other words it is expensive... to train employees
@@Rc2Go I think that he stated that the planes themselves were more expensive, or he at least eluded to that.
There is so much that's wrong with this video, here are two.
- 4 billion customers, not 4 billion unique individuals
-lots of people don't just use Boeing and Airbus jets. Embraer jets are very big in regional activities for example.
yes many airports rely on regional jets to operate on
did you even watch the video???
It literally spoke about Bombardier and Embraer.
So much wrong with your comment.
True.Those 4bn aren't different individual but same people travelling frequently.
Here we go here we got another FSX pilot who is know it all
You forgot the Russian Sukhoi Superjet and MC 21. Russian commercial aviation sector isn't progressing because of US sanctions. Its a strategy of the west. Won't last long though.
Airbus and Boeing dominate mid range to long haul. Embraer and bombardier dominate short haul
I'd say Airbus dominates the sky. Boeing dominates the ground.
Sucks the 747-8 and a380 are dying. The Jumbo's are a dying breed sadly.
Hey the 747 did its job excellently. Its served since 1970, and its served valiantly ever since. And the A380 arrived a little too late to become really successful. Unfortunately more fuel efficient twin engines are the thing. nothing against them, but seeing the 747 is something Ive always wanted to see. Ive never grown near airports and the closest one probably can't handle anything larger than a 767, so I've never seen the famed 747 people gawk at.
The 707 didn't pave the way, the Comet paved the way. Grrr!
But the Comet basically failed
@kenjryker Try again. Boeing introduced the worlds first pressurized airliner in 1938, the 307 stratoliner. Boeing pioneered the NOW STANDARD configuration of swept wing pod mounted engines with the B-47 at a time when Dehavilland was still using wood in their air frame construction in the late 1940s and then again with the B-52 . They did'nt need to "stand on the shoulders of the British" as you put it. The 707 and Comet share absolutely nothing. The Comet was the first commercial jetliner, but the 707 was the first SUCCESSFUL commercial jetliner. DH did it first, but Boeing did it right.
France, Germany, Spain and United Kingdom are the owners of Airbus. You missed Spain.
Airbus is basically a French/German company; the whole management is french and german. The weight of others countries is not significant. Spain and U.K. are production sites.
Amazigh Blue Azul - Anti Mafia - Anti ANPD I’m sorry but I disagree, the FACT is that Airbus is owned by these 4 countries, period, like EASA, its parent company. China and USA are the production sites.
@@freewal There is actually 5 nations with a stake in Airbus, it was originally the UK, France and West Germany but today it is the UK, France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands. France and Germany own the bulk because the UK pulled out but then bought back in and has a similar stake to Spain and the Netherlands.
@@krashd Actually i worked 16 years for this company. Yes it's an an european company, and UK, Spain, Netherlands are sharheolder of Airbus.
But my point was : which countries are able to take decisions in Airbus ? Where are the power centres (geographically) ? From which countries come from the management ? Answer : France and Germany. Like the European Union, it's these two countries which have leaded the principles of Airbus.
Actually good reporting on aviation from the media! It is good for the average person to understand. Yeah sure there are minor mistakes but they are more then negligible. Keep it up!
Let's shove boeing and airbus out of the way and build more aerospace companies. Impossible is nothing.
*wendover has entered the chat*
These 2 company always have a dinner together and discuss how to fool their customers!
lol because of covid 19 the amount of people travelling will become halved
Spoiler: This deal to buy Embraer was canceled.
Who knows why…
If its Boeing i'm not Going.
If it's not an airbus, I'm taking the bus.
Lol Atleast for Now.
@@vagabond630 lol
Or "If it ain't a Boeing, I aint't going" :D
Especially with no yoke on Airbus planes, nope I don't think so.
What the hell will a pilot do, start pressing buttons in case of an emergency dive?! It's laughable.
Yeah, right. [dripping sarcasm] "Airbus NEO you live. Boeing 737 MAX you die." Choose and choose wisely.
Repair Boeing 737 Max. Re-branding. Make sure the system will not go crazy. Take out the system that makes the plane goes haywire.
However dominating Boeing is, I am NOT going to buy and loose money on Boeing stock again.
Could we not get subtitles on bad connection robot voice guy?
Willybots there are subs
Aditya Dandwate but I would have to turn them on. They should just be there
Willybots they do have subs(which u don't have to activate) in future videos, noticing this problem. So its fine now
@@aaaadit5155 I get it. I will never watch this video again, so I don't care
It seems like Airbus and Boeing can't be stopped by any other manufacturers! Only Airbus can stop Boeing and only Boeing can stop Airbus. Right now, Airbus is winning in the battle against Boeing. Good Job Airbus
Airbus will now be king of the sky for the foreseeable future since the Max has failed so epically.
*completely ignores Russia*