Chinese Aviation Industry

V

voyager1

Captain
Registered Member
Quickie said:
I suppose you meant this?



Well, first of all, from Hendrik's post it's 1.5 million passengers, not 1 million (The youtube video is a bit dated). From Wikipedia, the number of active ARJ-21 in operation is 48, not 33 as you have so conveniently quote with a lower number again.

The bulk of the increase in the number of passengers and active aircraft in operation comes from the last 2 years, which include 2020 where traveling by air was banned for almost the entire year.

That's why there's bound to a major distortion if you compare these figures with those of the Azimuth where passenger traffic was more evenly distributed in the number of years since in operation and production/delivery of the Superjet was already in full swing.

The production rate of the ARJ-21 is now at 30 per year, which is over 50% of the total number of ARJ-21 that has been built (52), and that is in just ONE year.

There's bound to be an exponential increase in the number of active ARJ-21 in operation and the number of passengers in the coming years especially if they manage to get the pandemic under control and air traffic return to normal.
Click to expand...
30 aircraft per year is a big jump from the previous years but it still too low. From what I know Chinese airlines need a lot of aircraft to cover their requirements.

Hopefully production picks up to cover some of the domestic needs
 
Last edited:
F

foxmulder

Junior Member
Tirdent said:
240 hours of revenue-generating flight per month.
Click to expand...

Tirdent said:
Well, per the original source the Azimuth SSJ100 data I used equates to an average of ~240h, and is roughly 9x better than the July 2020 ARJ21 info Hendrik_2000 posted. So between 2018 and last year utilization does not appear to have gotten meaningfully better.



Sure, but the comparison is still decidedly unflattering for the ARJ21 - other examples (Airbus A300 etc.) at least managed to operate profitably after a short while. Some more SSJ100 stats for comparison: for both CityJet (non-Russian, so outside established MRO network) and Yakutia (one of the earliest customers, EIS in 2012), the initial pair of aircraft already averaged 100 to 120h in the first few months after introduction.
Click to expand...


Your data is outdated so is your interpretation.
 
T

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
Quickie said:
I suppose you meant this?
Click to expand...

Yes. You should really read and understand it before attempting to criticize it though...

Quickie said:
Well, first of all, from Hendrik's post it's 1.5 million passengers, not 1 million. From Wikipedia, the number of active ARJ-21 in operation is 48, not 33 as you have so conveniently quote with a lower number again.
Click to expand...

Nope, it isn't - 1.5 million is *Hendrik's estimate* for the current figure, his original source says 1 million in July 2020, at which time the fleet numbered 33 aircraft. As anything beyond that is pure conjecture I based my comparison off the confirmed status as of July last year.

Quickie said:
The bulk of the increase in the number of passengers and active aircraft in operation comes from the last 2 years, which include 2020 where traveling by air was banned for almost the entire year.
Click to expand...

Outside China? Yes (so Azimuth certainly was affected badly in October 2020 when the figures I that used were released...), but the PRC quickly returned to business as usual. By July 2020, domestic flights (which is where the AJR21 operates exclusively, due to lack of international certification) were approaching pre-pandemic levels and started to *grow* again not long after!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

foxmulder said:
Your data is outdated so is your interpretation.
Click to expand...

Why? If between 2018 and 2020 there was little improvement, what makes you believe the current situation would be dramatically better? And while the data is out of date, it isn't THAT old - less than a year in both cases and the periods are closely comparable (June 2016 - July 2020 for the ARJ21, September 2017 - October 2020 for Azimuth/SSJ100).
 
Last edited:
P

PUFF_DRAGON

New Member
Registered Member
Tirdent said:
- Integrated Power Package
- EODAS/HMD integration
- Shaft-driven lift fan

Software integration is actually an Achilles heel on the F-35, Saab could have taught LM a thing or two here.

By contrast, what's so novel about the ARJ21? Its engines are off-the-shelf, the fuselage is modified from a MDD airliner license-built in China and the wing was developed with support from Antonov. Over-ambitious, it wasn't.
Click to expand...

These are minor optimizations compared to the proverbial great leap forward the F-22 Raptor represented for American aerospace technology.

For the Chinese commercial aviation industry I would argue it's ambitious because they kind of suck right now. It's all relative.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
PUFF_DRAGON said:
These are minor optimizations compared to the proverbial great leap forward the F-22 Raptor represented for American aerospace technology.

For the Chinese commercial aviation industry I would argue it's ambitious because they kind of suck right now. It's all relative.
Click to expand...

Wrt the ARJ, it really is a case of China's then commercial aviation industry being in such a way that even a relatively mediocre product represents a big enough step towards progressing that industry. Well the commiseration for the ones shouldering the costs is that the club which it's joining is extremely small with Embraer and Bombardier's ambitions of entering commercial scale either on short legs or last legs. I don't suppose they'll get out of their niche for smaller private planes. E195 and Bombardier's CRJ series are not exactly going to have a captive market or find any real commercial success either. Mistubishi folded. The field of commercial aviation is going to be dominated by Airbus and Boeing for a while to come with only Chinese and Russian potential challengers, with the latter owing much financial support from having captive markets.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
t2contra said:
No difference from AVIC's aim. Wright Bros' first aircraft did not make any too.
Click to expand...

But their intention was to eventually make financial gains from the endeavor, just like AVIC's is to make money eventually from the building towards a commercially competitive eventual capability.
 
broadsword

broadsword

Brigadier
ougoah said:
But their intention was to eventually make financial gains from the endeavor, just like AVIC's is to make money eventually from the building towards a commercially competitive eventual capability.
Click to expand...

AVIC has been awarded with orders and will still be rewarded with more orders in future.
 
T

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
t2contra said:
No difference from AVIC's aim. Wright Bros' first aircraft did not make any too.
Click to expand...

Well, there is - the Wrights never pretended the Flyer was anything other than a proof of concept and didn't force it on customers to operate at a loss (or with state subsidies, more likely)... What they did (and how AVIC should perhaps have handled the ARJ21) is more like the Boeing Model 367.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top