As a new player in this field, I think it's normal that C919 has some minor issues. But I don't think the plane would not be grounded if it had issues like fuel leak and cockpit door air leak. These guys used to overdone when they perform.
COMAC C919
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
I think you don't know Chinese government at all:
2ndly, a state-owned airline in China doesn't mean that government would cover its losses. Such thing indeed happened in Chairman Mao's time but not today, not after Deng Xiaoping's era. Otherwise China would have not jobless men because government would order state-owned companies hiring them all and communism would have been achieved tomorrow, or most likely, Gordon Chang would have become the greatest fortune teller in human history.
1stly, Chinese government worries C919 crash more than how many planes have been produced. Such prudence contributes a lot of C909/919's low utilization rates, but also contributes lots to their zero major accident record after all these yeas in service.
As for sanction, I have said in other posts that unlike Russia, China has means to make the West suffer if they do so. It's kind like: Why didn't Russian use nukes to stop NATO arming Ukraine?----Because NATO also had nukes; Why didn't NATO use nukes to stop Russia? Because Russia had nukes too. When you study a thing which involves 2 parties, you need to view it from both sides' angles for making the right conclusion, not only from one side's.
I remain sceptical. First, Airbus is even manufactured in China; a US ban can't have a devastating impact. On the other hand, we can discover that Russia's civil aviation, even Iran's civil aviation, still operates. As long as we can produce some wear-and-tear parts in-house, maintaining the current fleet won't be difficult. Not to mention China can use high-speed railway to absorb some domestic aviation demand.
lcloo
Major
How is your statement is in contradiction with mine?
lcloo
Major
How do you knw that I don't know.
Please cite an example of officical statement2ndly, a state-owned airline in China doesn't mean that government would cover its losses. Such thing indeed happened in Chairman Mao's time but not today, not after Deng Xiaoping's era. Otherwise China would have not jobless men because government would order state-owned companies hiring them all and communism would have been achieved tomorrow, or most likely, Gordon Chang would have become the greatest fortune teller in human history.
Did I ever write that the Chinese government will cover the losses of airliners?
1stly, Chinese government worries C919 crash more than how many planes have been produced. Such prudence contributes a lot of C909/919's low utilization rates, but also contributes lots to their zero major accident record after all these yeas in service.
where did I write that contradict your reply?
Well, given how often airlines misjudge what they need and what they buy - it's uncomfortably close to truth.
But main problem with existing duopoly is that their orderbook stretches into the second half of 2030s, before any supply chain disruptions. That's one hell of a long backlog, so long it by itself defers new airplane development (or OEMs will cut value of their own backlog and entire leasing industry).
As such, C919 even as it is right now is a super needed product. Big part of why it isn't bought more is exactly lack of a demonstrated manufacturing (delivery) stability.
And big part of why COMAC can't deliver them faster is that component suppliers, even without expressed political bad will, prioritize 2+2 main customers.
To be fair to them, airline orders are long-term commitments, whereas the market is very dynamic and very sensitive to external geopolitical events. It's not entirely the airlines' fault.
I mean... the C919 book implies the opposite.