COMAC C919

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
Maybe a bit OT but what’s stopping China from giving Shenyang/Xian/Chengdu a mission to build new generation commercial planes?

the situation now is that COMAC have to compete with the larger heavily subsidized military giants that develop planes for America. This is hardly fair.

There is no need to do that and it might even be counter productive. Keeping it as a strictly civilian company reduces the chances COMAC will be hit with sanctions. Right now China still needs to import a lot of components and know how. Just see what happened with the Irkut MC-21 for example. They had severe issues with sanctions because the head company operates in the military sector.

From what I have heard thus far COMAC has no lack of resources. But these kinds of projects take time.
 

FactsPlease

Junior Member
Registered Member
There is no need to do that and it might even be counter productive. Keeping it as a strictly civilian company reduces the chances COMAC will be hit with sanctions. Right now China still needs to import a lot of components and know how. Just see what happened with the Irkut MC-21 for example. They had severe issues with sanctions because the head company operates in the military sector.

From what I have heard thus far COMAC has no lack of resources. But these kinds of projects take time.

I agree with what you said, in general - to the extent the idea that "sanction due to military sector (involved)", BEFORE the trade war.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


A cold fact is: at any time, POTUS can announce this aircraft manufacture industry is "of national security interest". Refer to above Rand (I know, typical eagle. What else?) report - you can smell everywhere in the article warning NOT to let C919 succeed. And, don't forget what New York Times reported: the CEO of Boeing is calling Trump, not the chairman of FAA in that 737 Max case.

COMAC truly need to step on to complete its project ASAP.
 

weig2000

Captain
A more rational view on China's role in grounding the 737 Max

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China’s swift action stemmed damage to the company’s reputation among passengers and airlines, not to mention its business on the mainland.

By Adam Minter March 14, 2019, 3:01 AM EDT

China didn't waste any time reacting to the tragic crash of a Boeing Co. 737 Max operated by Ethiopian Airlines Group on Sunday. Less than 24 hours after the accident, it became the first country to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the plane. In the hours and days that followed, Ethiopia, Europe and --
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
-- the Federal Aviation Administration in the U.S. followed Beijing’s lead. The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of Boeing's most profitable plane is now global.

As evidence accumulates that the Ethiopian disaster bears
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of a 737 Max operated by Indonesia's Lion Air in November, a flying ban now seems like the obvious move. Nonetheless, Boeing, which at first resisted such a drastic step, owes China a debt of gratitude. Beijing’s early action likely sped up the process and ensured that Boeing's reputation wasn't further damaged in the eyes of aviation regulators, airlines and -- most crucially -- the rapidly expanding flying public in China, one of the planemaker’s biggest and most important markets.

This isn't the first time that a foreign country or airline has prompted Boeing and the FAA to ground a troubled new aircraft. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner twin-aisle aircraft, launched in 2011, experienced several
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
during its first year of service, including cracked windows, fuel leaks and battery fires. On Jan. 7, 2013, a lithium-ion battery
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in a Japan Airlines Co. Ltd. 787 that had just arrived in Boston from Tokyo.

Four days later, the FAA called a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and announced that while it would initiate a "high-priority" review of the plane with Boeing’s cooperation, it wasn’t ordering airlines not to fly the jet. Five days later, a Dreamliner operated by Japan's All Nippon Airways Co. Ltd. (the plane's
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) was forced to make an
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
due to a lithium-ion battery fire. ANA and Japan Airlines grounded their 787 fleets the very same day. Only then did the FAA
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
U.S. 787s; the rest of the world followed suit.

The two Japanese carriers obviously acted with passenger safety in mind. But, they also had their own survival and that of the Japanese aviation industry to consider. Japanese companies are key suppliers for the 787 (for example, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the wings), and ANA and Japan Airlines were planning long-haul businesses built upon the fuel-efficient Dreamliner. A grounding, whatever its costs, was better than being stuck with a plane that passengers didn’t trust and airlines wouldn’t buy.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in China than any other country, leaving its airlines highly exposed to both safety and consumer concerns related to Boeing. In the next decade, China is set to grow into the world's biggest aviation market, from its current status as No. 2. Not much is likely to derail that ascent. But, at least in the short-term, accidents and airplanes that scare off Chinese consumers -- a demographic famously and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
sensitive to product-safety scandals -- could be problematic.

In 2014, for instance, Chinese passenger volume on Malaysian Airlines Bhd. fell by
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in the wake of the MH370 disappearance; it took the airline nearly
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to restore confidence. A similar consumer aversion to flying the 737 Max would be highly disruptive at best.

The damage could extend well beyond Chinese airlines. In 2017, Boeing and the Commercial Aircraft Corp. of China
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
a completion-and-delivery center 90 miles from Shanghai where Boeing aircraft will be flown for final touches, such as installing seats and cabin equipment and, eventually, exterior painting. In December, the first plane finished at the center -- a 737 Max -- was
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to Air China. Eventually, the center is expected to complete around 100 planes per year, primarily the 737 Max.

The business is important not just for Boeing but for China, which not only is keen to hold onto jobs during its current slowdown but has made no secret of its desire to build its own aviation industry, in part by learning from foreign competitors.

Under these circumstances, it's no surprise that China rushed to ground the 737 Max. Yet even then, by some accounts, Chinese officials expected the FAA to act first. When the U.S. agency appeared to dither, "we took the lead,"
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Boeing, increasingly dependent upon China for its sales and profits, should be grateful they did.
 

MwRYum

Major
Maybe a bit OT but what’s stopping China from giving Shenyang/Xian/Chengdu a mission to build new generation commercial planes?

the situation now is that COMAC have to compete with the larger heavily subsidized military giants that develop planes for America. This is hardly fair.
Because their goal is not just "to make a plane" but to build up / up-game at industry-wide level, thus form a new corporation that acts as overall leading body with a new mindset tailored for commercial aviation, while those established ones though not strangers to commercial operations but they're more set towards military / government contracts, serves at partners / service providers. Now, although C919 has plenty of western components - it was done out of commercial reality, higher proportion of MIC components in successive models, C919's goal is to establish a market presence.
 

weig2000

Captain
Maybe a bit OT but what’s stopping China from giving Shenyang/Xian/Chengdu a mission to build new generation commercial planes?

the situation now is that COMAC have to compete with the larger heavily subsidized military giants that develop planes for America. This is hardly fair.

Because their goal is not just "to make a plane" but to build up / up-game at industry-wide level, thus form a new corporation that acts as overall leading body with a new mindset tailored for commercial aviation, while those established ones though not strangers to commercial operations but they're more set towards military / government contracts, serves at partners / service providers. Now, although C919 has plenty of western components - it was done out of commercial reality, higher proportion of MIC components in successive models, C919's goal is to establish a market presence.

Back when China decided to invest in its large aircraft program over a decade ago, it was decided that a new company separate from the existing AVIC would be incorporated to take on the commercial aircraft endeavor. There are two main reasons for incorporating a new company instead of giving it to any one of the AVIC subsidiaries (XAC, CAC etc.): One is that it was anticipated that the new company would need to partner and cooperate extensively with western companies. It would be difficult for any of the AVIC subsidiary to engage in such activities due to their roles in developing and manufacturing Chinese military aircraft. Another is that the new company would from beginning adopt "international standards and practice" to ensure its future success in both domestic and international markets. The AVIC carries too much burden and baggage in terms of its SOE legacy and company culture, having been working mostly with government and military.

Another heated debate back then was where the new company should be located: Xian or Shanghai. Xian because it would be close to XAC, which was really the only aircraft company in China that had experience in designing and manufacturing large aircraft. The new company could leverage XAC's experience in that area - in fact, many COMAC personnel were from XAC originally. Shanghai because it is China's largest and most international commercial city. It would be easier for COMAC to attract and retain talents, partner with western companies, and conduct sales, marketing and service than if it located in an inland city like Xian. In the end, the government stroke a balance: it gave the Y-20 project to XAC, and set up COMAC at Shanghai.
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
As I see it, the arrangement is like this. The AVIC trio focus and are tasked to due with technical solution, engineering and fabrication etc. COMAC is more of the front end, conceptual design, program management, final assembly, flight test and certification, then marketing and sales.
 

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
I agree with what you said, in general - to the extent the idea that "sanction due to military sector (involved)", BEFORE the trade war.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


A cold fact is: at any time, POTUS can announce this aircraft manufacture industry is "of national security interest". Refer to above Rand (I know, typical eagle. What else?) report - you can smell everywhere in the article warning NOT to let C919 succeed. And, don't forget what New York Times reported: the CEO of Boeing is calling Trump, not the chairman of FAA in that 737 Max case.

COMAC truly need to step on to complete its project ASAP.

That would just end with sanctions on Boeing and other US aircraft companies for unfair interference.

It is questionable how useful America’s order to others to ban civilian products actually are. In the case of Huawei, not very effective and in fact just gave them tons of publicity.

Also China would be able to make up for any lost sale easily by banning US aircraft reciprocally and ordering all it’s carriers to buy from COMAC instead due to “national security”
 

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
...
COMAC truly need to step on to complete its project ASAP.

That won't make much of a difference. The dependency will remain, and in fact grow more significant (due to full financial commitment) when the aircraft enters into production. Without replacement parts it won't even be possible to maintain the aircraft that were produced and the whole fleet would quickly end up grounded.
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
I agree with what you said, in general - to the extent the idea that "sanction due to military sector (involved)", BEFORE the trade war.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


A cold fact is: at any time, POTUS can announce this aircraft manufacture industry is "of national security interest". Refer to above Rand (I know, typical eagle. What else?) report - you can smell everywhere in the article warning NOT to let C919 succeed. And, don't forget what New York Times reported: the CEO of Boeing is calling Trump, not the chairman of FAA in that 737 Max case.

COMAC truly need to step on to complete its project ASAP.
This part is partially working and partially not. The fact that Boeing aircraft can land and take off in China and pass over Chinese air space is because CAAC approves it, not because FAA certified it. Any aviation jurisdiction may choose to accept FAA certification, but may choose not to. For example, this time around the Ethiopian ET302 crash, CAAC was the first to ground all 737MAX before FAA, so are the Europeans and Indonesians etc. North America is the last airspace that 737MAX is allowed to operate.

If China believes that US (president or FAA) is blocking C919's certification in any way, Boeing's aircraft will be hit (grounding current models and no approvals for coming models). Banning Boeing's aircrafts over Chinese air space essentially kills Boeing because even Boeing aircrafts from any other countries have to fly around China, in some cases that is not possible without heavy cost penalty incurred by extra mileage and stop-overs.
 
Top