The current North American commercial airframer (Boeing) is profitable and is
arguably the only NA commercial airplane manufacturer, as a business unit that
ever actually has been. This primarily due to its fundamental business model.
The selling price of their aircraft has less to do with cost of manufacturing
but more to do with the price that the market will bear. This is a very well
researched and evolving model with Boeing working closely with the bankers and
leasers to make sure it works. Many other industries have adopted similar
models. DuPont for example with plastics and chemicals. If you contact a live
human at DuPont and ask for a quote on 100,000~1,000,000 pounds of Zytel 101
nylon 6-6, the first response will be "what are you making with it?". Then they
show up, evaluate your product, estimate your profit, then calculate their cut.
That's your price. These types of models are getting much better at predicting
market fluctuations but are still not perfect. Airlines are also have other
operational procedures and costs that cut into the ideal model so some of it
has to be recovered. The consumer sees it in the form of surcharges and fees
which can be very profitable in some cases BTW.
Having said that, "the price that the market will bear" starts to diminish once
start dealing with systems that are intended to operate at supersonic speeds.
They become almost non-existent, in terms of cost effective, manufacturing,
propulsion and operations as it applies to commercial aircraft when systems
become hypersonic and exo-atmospheric. Burt Rutan had the good sense to involve
at least one key person from the X-15 program for SS-1. It became quickly
apparent why many of the X-15 accomplishments had not been matched or
superseded in almost 40 years, the space shuttle notwithstanding. When SS-1
accomplished it's mission, I recall mentioning on this list that routine
commercial space tourism would never happen by the predicted time frame then, I
think it was 2012~2013 ish. In order to equate most any commercial space
vehicle operations to those of commercial airlines, an entirely new set of
inputs will be required. They won't be things like 3D printing as we know it,
Skylon, irrigation pipes or practical chemical, engine cycles. It will remain a
very expensive, high risk, thrill ride for the wealthy for quite some time to
come when it happens. The same holds true for lofting real payloads for
commercial space and research and development but I digress. :-)
Best.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Uwe Klein
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 2:40 AM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: Rocket Labs
Am 17.09.2015 um 00:30 schrieb Pierce Nichols:
True... and I believe you missed my point. The reason the airlines
have had a total net profit of somewhere near zero is because the much
less numerous makers of commercial aircraft have managed to organize
the market in such a way that they pocket essentially all of the
profits produced.
