What this proves is the EASA certificate is more a political certificate than an aviation safety certificate. The aircraft is no less safer after these suspension.
COMAC C919
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
What this proves is the EASA certificate is more a political certificate than an aviation safety certificate. The aircraft is no less safer after these suspension.
COMAC Gradually increase the production..
one existing assembly line.. and second newly build assembly line is in final phase of completion.. one of the largest final assembly line of narrow body aircraft in the world..
so COMAC will have two production lines of C919 in near future ..
Exactly !
Sale and certification to America and Europe is interesting but narrow body fleet in Asia pacific likely to grow to 5,000 active aircraft in 2032 from about 2300 right now. If COMAC can take more than 20% of that growth, it will have their hands full anyway.
Will most countries even have their own Type Certification process for the C919's airworthiness? I was under the impression that most countries simply accept FAA or EASA certification without fuss. But trying to get these countries into accepting CAAC certification would be more complicated.
I think EASA certification for the C919 is being done for potential customers in the Global South, and not for those in the EU.
I think EASA certification for the C919 is being done for potential customers in the Global South, and not for those in the EU.
lcloo
Captain
It is true most countries will just accept FAA and EASA airworthiness certificate without question because they simply do not have their own civil airline certifications.
Also recognition of China's airworthiness certification can by unileteral or bilateral agreement between a country and China. Example is ARJ-21 flying within Indonesia's domestic routes and international route between Malaysia and Indonesia. Also there are some countries also flying MA-60 airplane on their domestic routes.
Both ARJ-21 and MA-60 do not have FAA or EASA airworthiness certificate. There are more than a dozen countries that will accept China's airworthiness certificate. I think most of the global South do accept, except Australia and New Zealand and a few others.
It's confusing but every country has their own air certs. However, many countries will just accept FAA and EASA and automatically give it if they pass one of those two. China certainly has enough sway to get some countries to outright just accept CAAC as well.
The EASA certificate is less about getting countries to agree to buy the C919, but more about marketing saying it's definitely safe and you can trust it. Legally for most other countries they could just accept the CAAC with their own authority if they wanted.
In that regard if EASA is obtained, revoking dont make a difference. Previous certification already admited its safety.
There is more to certifying an airliner than merely assuring the design is safe here and now. It is also about securing and documenting the entire production process of each individual aircraft. See the ongoing issues Boeing has with the already certified 737MAX, where the FAA is currently enforcing a cap of 30 aircraft per month because of quality issues.
For various obvious reasons, EASA could no longer assure that Russian aircraft production was up to standard.
There are a couple of other factors in play as well. An Indonesian airline would obviously want to fly its aircraft to Australia, an African airline to Europe. What about Japan? Singapore? The UAE? Good luck flying your C919 to all those places if it isn't approved.
And then the resale value. An A320 or 737 will command a higher resale value than a C919 that can only be sold on to a small handful of customers. Case in point, Delta Airlines purchased 33 ex-Lion Air 737-900ER.
Long story short, you buy a 737NG and after 10 years sell it to someone else for 50% of its original price, or you buy a C919 and sell it someone else for 10% of its original price. That's a significant amount of money for an airline.
lcloo
Captain
I see a lot of Prejudice in your statement for somthing that is not even happening yet.
This can be solved by the ensuring the company which gets the aircraft gets paid a certain value as a residual rate. I have of other companies doing this. This situation of poor resale value does not only happen to Chinese airplanes. It will happen to any new airplane with low sales numbers and low demand. For example the Airbus A380 typically has had terrible resale value.