Solution 1:

In the 1960s, any global airline could choose aircraft from several players, including CON, DOU, DASS, LOCK, BOM, ABUS, and BOE. Most innovative products came from the stables of ABUS and BOE. In contrast, the other players were market followers and came up with more of me-too products.

Historically, companies like ABUS and BOE focused on manufacturing aircraft, which were 150-400 seaters with a range of 4000-8000 miles. In contrast, the smaller players focused on 40-100 seaters and smaller flying range. When airliners started looking at smaller sized jets, ABUS and BOE sensed the danger and potential loss of business. Hence, they started selling their products at baseline rates, making it impossible for smaller players like EMBR and BOM.

One of the exceptions was BOM, which came up with a good product like the C Series. The C Series was a combination of both fuel-efficiency and passenger comfort. It also provided the option of trans-Atlantic flying capabilities. BOM received some initial orders from leading airlines such as DEL. However, BOE lodged complaints in the USA against BOM and forced the US government to impose an additional 300% tariff against BOM products, which were being imported from Canada. Unfortunately, the costs of development, significant delays in the planning process, and the vast time and financial resources needed to break into the global marketplace, threatened to sink a small company such as BOM. Thus eventually, they were forced to transfer their C Series program to ABUS. Similar efforts from EMBR in the E175/195 segment have resulted in a merger with BOE.

Historically, companies like ABUS and BOE focused on manufacturing aircraft, which were 150-400 seaters with a range of 4000-8000 miles. In contrast, the smaller players focused on 40-100 seaters and smaller flying range. When airliners started looking at smaller sized jets, ABUS and BOE sensed the danger and potential loss of business. Hence, they started selling their products at baseline rates, therefore, making it impossible for the smaller players like EMBR and BOM.

Eventually, in 50 years, all the companies pretty much disappeared from the marketplace with just two players left - ABUS and BOE.
------------------------

Solution 2:

The feud between BOE and ABUS has been ongoing for years, which involves both financial and political muscles. BOE has accused ABUS of securing unfair subsidies from the European Union countries. In turn, ABUS has accused BOE of securing similar unfair subsidies from the USA government for the 777 program for which they received tax breaks to the tune of $8.7 billion from the Washington state. Both sides approached the WTO for a redressal, but no clear mandate came out. In 2020, the US government announced a 15% tariff on aircraft imported from the EU.
------------------------

Solution 3:

Based on research, the aviation industry is ramping up manufacturing of fuel-efficient aircrafts such as A320 and B737. Besides, there is a focus on developing aircraft which have lower carbon emissions. The financing of next-generation products would happen through:

1. Sovereign Wealth Funds from China, Singapore, and UAE.
2. Financial investors and Private equity firms
3. Banks from far east countries like Japan and China

------------------------

Solution 4:

The aviation manufacturing industry is pretty much a duopoly with ABUS and BOE. The other smaller players find it difficult to sustain any large path-breaking programs. Hence, they typically end up looking for partnerships to sustain.

Secondly, the aviation industry also faces a lot of tariff-related issues due to imports. With international cooperation, it becomes easier to avoid tariffs and import duties.