A340 also got junked fast... not sure that you can sell a used 737 max easily too these days.
COMAC C919
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
It looks more like "dragging feet", "I will do it when I have time, (I will never have time)". It is EASA renagating from commitment with CAAC by pretending to be respsonsible. What if EASA now ask CAAC to certify a new Airbus which EASA has already certified and China replis "we will take whatever time to ensure its safty." Do you still honestly think this is entirely reasonable?
FAA cheated by letting Boeing doing certification job. CAAC did not let COMAC to do certification job. Using FAA's fault to excuse EASA is like arresting everybody on the street because there is a criminal in the prison.
Quote:
COLOGNE, March 14 (Reuters) - Europe's air safety regulator will take whatever time is needed to approve China's C919 passenger jet, its top official told Reuters, dampening Beijing's hopes of quickly breaking into a market marked by jet shortages and a Boeing safety crisis.
Whatever time, that includes infinite.
Quote:
Luc Tytgat, acting executive director of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), said COMAC had initially asked for European approval in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic stopped work. It re-launched the bid in November, requesting that the work be completed by 2026.
EASA was asked in 2019, more than 4 years have passed, that is clearly NOT want to do their part of agreement than being prefessional cautious. China's request has given EU 4 years that is almost the same amount of time that EU would need to certify Airbus.
Quote:
"Honestly I don't know if we will be able to do it yet: the plane is too new to us to know how easy or difficult it will be," he said in an interview at EASA's Cologne headquarters.
"Since 2019, things continued to be done in China so we now have to be briefed on the changes," he added.
The plane is NOT new to EASA, they had the same amount of time as CAAC to review whatever COMAC has been submitting to them. You have 4 years constant communication of any changes, and you have never bothered to read?
If it takes FAA 5 to 9 years to certify a Boeing, will it take another 5 to 9 years for EASA to certify the same plane? Certainly not. EASA's move is the very same of "EV dumping investigation" or "Eavesdropping Crane". Nothing professional but pure "none tariff blockade".
What EU is doing is to protect and increase Airbus's market share by taking advantage of Boeing's setback. It does not want COMAC to share the pie. EU's block is not only stopping EU operators to buy C919 but also prohibit operator outside of EU to fly C919 into EU forcing them to buy Airbus. There is absolutely no professionalism here.
Last edited:
Do Airbus and Boeing buy from Chinese suppliers?
Banning purchase is one thing, forbidding entering air space is pretty big. What would happen if China reciprocated? Chinese airlines have Boeing and Airbus planes for EU anyways. Does EU have anything similar? Wont that cause assymetrical advantage for China?
It will eventually if China is serious about building a successful commercial airliner.
Great, so Comac/China subsidises each exported C919. So who is going to pay for all of that then? Or is it just going to be a loss making social program? The C919 must become a commercial success, that entails building and certifying it according to internationally accepted norms and standards.
Not sure bringing up the A380 is such a great example, it was a massive commercial failure.
The original A340s lasted long enough, the A340-500 and A340-600 not so much.
The 737MAX actually sells really well on the second hand market, however that is only half the story. The values are no doubt really low as well, and face it, the 737MAXs only justification these days is that Airbus can’t build the A320neo fast enough, and there are no alternatives in the eyes of the market. Plus Boeing can’t even deliver the MAX on time to customers that have built their entire fleets on the type. The market is really screaming for an EASA or FAA certified C919.
Loads. Everything from major structural components of the airframe to seats. Pretty sure the entire 737 vertical stabilizer is made by Xian these days. Xian also builds parts for the 787 and 747. Harbin made the Embraer ERJ and builds helicopters in cooperation with Airbus. Chengdu makes components for Airbus and Northrop Grumman and used to build the empennage of the 757, and used to build MD-80s. Then you have the 737 completion centre, the A320 FAL in Tianjin, cargo aircraft conversions, major maintenance facilities and so on. Bombardier had a lot going on as well. Even the new Air Force One and Marine One for the US president will feature structural components from Chinese manufacturers.
I worked in a major commercial aircraft program for 5 years where we relocated the empennage and rear fuselage production to China because the quality was superior to the original Italian subcontractor.
I don't know why people are still arguing about this? C919 OG was not developed with EASA certification in mind, so it will most likely never be certified. These days, you have to involve the regulators from day 1 to get yourself certified.
And then you would have no large or medium civilian transport aircraft. China will only be able to play hardball in this once it can produce its own aircraft.
The rest of the industry does the same thing. Prices are negotiated on a per customer basis. No one pays list price. If the customer has issues with perceived lack of reliability or residual value or whatever that also gets compensated.
You really underestimate how these companies can play hardball. In some cases aircraft are sold at a loss just to lock a competitor out. One example was Alaska Airlines dumping their Airbus aircraft for Boeing. New models are also typically sold at a loss. The Boeing Dreamliner was initially sold at a loss to lock customers in. Bombardier also did the same with the CSeries. It is normal in the business to sell the first aircraft of a new model at a loss and as production ramps up the production costs go down significantly as the fixed costs become less relevant and you negotiate large bulk component purchases.
The Airbus A380 is another great example. The larger airline companies back then often refused to buy Airbus aircraft because they lacked a large aircraft offer competitive with the Boeing 747. If you needed to buy the Boeing 747 and had an all Boeing fleet you got one price, and if you had some Airbus aircraft you would get a different price on those Boeing 747. And maybe Boeing would bump you to the end of the queue.
These are the same sorts of business tactics that Intel used for decades to undermine AMD in the PC market.
All of this could be outsourced elsewhere.
Does not matter. Boeing also used to make their aircraft landing gears in Russia and now they don't.
Last edited:
It was my job for 5 years, I know how it works. Selling the first aircraft at a loss is common, but there has to be a plan to turn it profitable sooner or later. Comac handicapping itself by not certifying the C919 with EASA will only ensure long term unprofitability. Profits means more money to be invested into product improvements and future new aircraft.
Bombardier nearly went into bankruptcy over its attempts at developing the C-series and selling them at a loss, eventually forcing them to sell it to Airbus at a symbolic price. Even with discounts, Bombardier could only secure trash customers such as that crowdfunded airline or airlines that quickly retired the type again.
Boeing hasn’t made money in ages now because they likewise discount the products (and/or have to compensate for groundings, quality lapses and delays), and as a result don’t have the funds needed to develop better aircraft. Now there’s actual talk in mainstream media about a Boeing bankruptcy. Boeing didn’t just sell the initial 787s at a loss, they sold the first 500 at a loss!
COMAC already have like a thousand C919 orders in China alone. They just need to focus on building them.
Well only because the Canadian government backed off and stopped funding them. The CSeries aka Airbus A220 is still being sold at a loss I think. It costs a bundle to setup production of a new aircraft and drive costs down.
Boeing pissed away tens of billions in stock buybacks. That money would have been more than enough to develop the new aircraft.
Since they are more concerned with executive compensation than having a viable business they are getting what they deserve.
Yes. The Boeing 787 rollout was a disaster. Right now it is a source of income but even then it still has its issues.
It is essential for anyone who engage in debate of EASA certification of C919 to read this agreement
Especially pay attention to chapter 4.4.4
Also keep in mind that the CAAC certification standard is essentially a translation of carbon copy from FAA. Saying C919 is not developped with EASA certification in mind is like saying Boeing aircraft were not developped with EASA certification in mind. It is hard to believe.
Especially pay attention to chapter 4.4.4
Also keep in mind that the CAAC certification standard is essentially a translation of carbon copy from FAA. Saying C919 is not developped with EASA certification in mind is like saying Boeing aircraft were not developped with EASA certification in mind. It is hard to believe.
Last edited: