Chinese Aviation Industry

This is the same story of the big guys that want to kill-off the competition like the beginnings of the auto industry. Just like Hollywood wants unrestricted access to China so they can instill a preference to Hollywood movies to Chinese audiences in a newborn cinema market. They did it in the US market which is why foreign movies are normally not successful.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Not Quite, The Titanics would worry if they managed to get any thing off the ground. look at there programs as they sit though Comac is flirting not producing yet. They have flirted before.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

For example. but the important part is successes. Just as Brazil is the country of the Future that never gets there. many companies have competed in and failed in the Civil Aviation industry Some times spectacularly failed at that. Civil aviation is not military aviation, Patriotism only goes so far you need to get a customer base, Deliver to that base and prove that you can continue to deliver, Safely and Economically well still having a demand. IF something happens and your price climbs beyond the thin profit line, You might as well lock the doors. If the industry doesn't like your wears it's over, if the customer base dries up your birds are off to the bone yard. Airbus and Boeing have held there place in the industry despite other makers of long history like Lockheed and McDonald Douglas being knocked out.
So don't count them out and Don't assume automatic Victory.

Click to expand...

The airline industries had been waiting for a new player in a long time to break the Boeing and Airbus near monopoly as it would lower the costs of airplanes as new competitors comes in. The cost for doing business and running for both Boeing and Airbus are increasing every year at some point they can't sell enough planes to break even, therefore their R & D department will take a hit and so is their skilled workers as they scramble to meet shareholders needs first by laying off workers. As a result the program will be effected.

Skywatcher said:

If COMAC is successful, its exports will lie first in the developing world airlines of Africa, and the poorer Middle East, Central Asian, SE Asian and Central American airliners, if the C919 is cheap enough and easy/safe enough to operate that it displaces sales of used Boeing 737s and Airbus 320s (and maybe COMAC will score a few sales to some of the U.S./EU deep discount airlines in the near future).

Click to expand...

I doubt it since intial cost of procurement of a widebody jet is only a single factor of selecting a jet. Running cost, fuel economy and range is also factored in since the plane is going to be flown 24/7 for the next 15 years in which running cost is going to over weigh any intial saving you gain in procurment and IF COMAC cannot deliver onsite maintenance around the world then it is another factor that airliners will shun away from new comers.

SamuraiBlue said:

I doubt it since intial cost of procurement of a widebody jet is only a single factor of selecting a jet. Running cost, fuel economy and range is also factored in since the plane is going to be flown 24/7 for the next 15 years in which running cost is going to over weigh any intial saving you gain in procurment and IF COMAC cannot deliver onsite maintenance around the world then it is another factor that airliners will shun away from new comers.

Click to expand...

A lot of the aircraft manfacturer's revenue comes in the services and maintenance part. COMAC is probably going to offer pretty competitive maintenance deals (especially in local partnerships like South Africa and Nigeria whose nascent industries are just dying to break it big in this market), and the running cost and fuel economy is probably going to be pretty equal with whatever Boeing/Airbus models places like Africa and SE/South Asia can afford.

SamuraiBlue said:

I doubt it since intial cost of procurement of a widebody jet is only a single factor of selecting a jet. Running cost, fuel economy and range is also factored in since the plane is going to be flown 24/7 for the next 15 years in which running cost is going to over weigh any intial saving you gain in procurment and IF COMAC cannot deliver onsite maintenance around the world then it is another factor that airliners will shun away from new comers.

Click to expand...

you make a good point. but that's the luxury of having a huge domestic market to begin your civilian aircraft industry, china has but no one else have. after COMAC officially delivers its first plane it don't need to worry about international orders for a full decade or more. they can hone their management skills and service and maintenance in there home country. their goal should be to able to provide financing, service & maintenance on the level of boeing or airbus. in china it's their home turf and that is where they should start. if china doesn't have the giant home market and have to compete right away right after birth with the big two in the industry they have zero chance, and this is exactly why those other aspiring aircraft companies have little chance of succeeding because the entry barrier in this industry is so high. we're not talking about COMAC replacing boeing or airbus those 2 companies will still do great business in china in the short-medium range domestic jets in which the comac 919 is designed to compete in. if china only takes 40% of the domestic market then boeing 737 and airbus A320 take the remaining 60% then that would be a runaway success and a great start. all the money they invested in building up this industry is recuperated. and it's also a learning experience for them to build the next class of civilian aircraft.

For the international market, I'm sure COMAC will follow the marketing model of the MA60 which has been sold to more than 20 countries.

Blackstone said:

AVIC can't compete with Boeing or Airbus jetliners outside China, because it doesn't have any aircraft that could pass FAA/EU certification yet. AVIC optimists points to C-919 the answer, but the proof is in the pudding, and we'll see if AVIC even attempts to gain FAA certification.

Click to expand...

The ARJ-21 certification campaign has been under FAA shadow certification since 2010. A shadow certification is not a joint certification, and the American role is mostly passive, so ARJ-21 won’t automatically get FAA airworthiness certification upon completing CAAC type certificate process. That said, FAA has made available all relevant documentations and past records to CAAC as per their responsibilities in the shadow certification (more or less act as a mentor). Later it will be obliged to complete its assessment of the CAAC certification campaign within 18 months after its completion. It must then make a decision based on sound technological grounds.

In other words, if FAA choose to deny or delay the type certificate of ARJ-21, it has to offer full explanation to CAAC why they chose to do so, and what CAAC shall do to improve it. They do not have an option of ‘no we’re not certifying it cause we don’t trust you’ or ‘no deal and won’t tell you why’. That will breach a bilateral agreement signed by president Obama and Premier Wen back in 2009 and cause a major diplomatic and legal incident.

A similar example is the Sukhoi SSJ. It has been cleared by EASA for more than two years, but the FAA certification was delayed. That was mainly due to a issue with its engine blade (Sukhoi opt not to have a foreign engine option of SSJ). If the Russians managed to fix this problem among others, FAA is going to certify it regardless of political atmosphere, because of an earlier agreement (unless congress pass a law to outlaw Russian airliners in US).

Commercial airliner certification process is VERY expensive, the development of the aircraft is even more. No one would put its fate entirely at the mercy of the other party and take all the risks, so it’s usually assured in the form of bilateral agreement beforehand. The US government actually have very limited room to maneuver because they’re bound in heavy obligations.

Blackstone said:

AVIC can't compete with Boeing or Airbus jetliners outside China, because it doesn't have any aircraft that could pass FAA/EU certification yet. AVIC optimists points to C-919 the answer, but the proof is in the pudding, and we'll see if AVIC even attempts to gain FAA certification.

Click to expand...

BTW, in case you’re not aware, China has not developed an airliner NOT aiming for FAA certification for more than 20 years. Sadly their ambitions were not always matched by their capabilities.

The earliest example is Y7-200, followed by MA60. Both failed to meet the joint airworthiness requirements. Simply put, they’re not good enough. The failure to be US/EU certified actually have major impact on the sale of MA60. So far they’re only sold to third world countries where civil aviation regulations are loose or lacking.

The MA600 is the final attempt to west-certify an AN-24 derivative, but later they figure it’s not worthwhile and chose to start a clear sheet design, the MA700 (although some accused it being an ATR-72 clone).

ARJ-21 is, as I said, under shadow certification since 2010, 6 years after its development started. This late-adopting situation caused so many troubles. The CAAC is trying everything they can to mimic the FAA test requirements (with some help from the Americans), which is what cause the certification of ARJ-21 so long and painful. They’re essentially paying a very expensive tuition fee, the cost being the stagnated process of ARJ-21, the reward is that they’re don’t have to pay so much next time on the C919.

Having learned the lesson the hard way, C919 was designed with west certification requirements in mind from day one, and negotiations for joint-certification started almost the day it was launched. I have no doubt that it'll be EASA/FAA certified eventually; the only uncertainty is when. The announced ‘18/24 month after maiden flight’ timeframe is just bogus, and they shall be happy if that can be done by 2020.

The only success so far was the Harbin Y-12, a small transport/utility plane certified by FAA in 1995. So you see, it’s not exactly like that FAA certification is incomprehensible rocket science for the Chinese. They were capably for producing a small, simply airplane and pass all the stringent US/EU test requirements, 20 years ago. And it’s not like they don’t care – they care so much, tried so hard yet failed so completely and missed so many opportunities in the past 25 years. It’s almost tragicomedy.

Some people are saying that C919 will first be marketed to underdeveloped countries. That’s not exactly how COMAC foresee it – and not the optimal way either.

Naturally, it will first be mass-built for Chinese customers. Then, third-world countries that neighbors China, such as SE Asia and central Asia.

After that, however, developing countries in Mideast, Africa and Latin America are actually not the natural customer of Chinese airliners. Airliner of C919/Boeing 737 size and complexity are maintenance heavy, and tends to break down if overused in austere conditions. It’s not a dumb inexpensive turboliner. Heavy MRO obligations and the lack of skilled personals make the African airline even more dependent on an established and smooth-running regional supply chain. They might be able to get some C919s dirt-cheap, maybe even with Chinese loan, but operating them would be expensive and making money would be hard. In order to mitigate that, you need a good industry base in the region, but it’ll be hard to find an anchor customer(s) big enough to justify it in underdeveloped world. This becomes a chick-and-egg question.

That’s why cracking the North America, Europe and ME (the wealthier half) market is absolutely vital if C919 wants to avoid become a China-only airliner. Only there can you find anchor customers big enough to support a major expansion campaign. Ryanair once signed an expression of interest kind of contract with COMAC to offer consultation help, with an option of up to 200 C919s. Although I’m pessimistic that deal will ever materialize (and I have no idea how they bribe O’Leary into this), this is exactly the kind of customer they need. Not an order of 5, not 10, but hundreds at a time. That’s also why they absolutely need to get the west certifications.

The Chinese leadership invested a huge amount of political capital into COMAC, as the core of the effort to reverse the bad image of Made in China. If they end up with a China-only product, a lot of people will find them behind the bars.

This is why China will build its own aviation industry.



China 'needs 6,000 new planes by 2033': Boeing


Planes belonging to China's Hainan Airlines at the gate at Haikou airport in south China's Hainan province on June 12, 2014

China will need more than 6,000 new aircraft over the next 20 years, US manufacturer Boeing forecast Thursday -- an increase of almost 500 on its equivalent prediction last year.
Flight demand in the world's most populous country and second-largest economy is increasing and diversifying, Boeing said in its new Current Market Outlook for the country.
Chinese new aircraft demand will reach 6,020 planes worth $870 billion during the 2014-2033 period, it said, compared to last year's 20-year demand forecast of 5,580 planes.
Underscoring the dramatic increase in passenger demand, Boeing said that a total of 6,930 passenger aircraft will be plying China's skies in 2033, three times the current 2,310.

"China’s domestic market has been strong and resilient for many years, and continues to be strong," Randy Tinseth, vice president of marketing at Boeing Commercial Airplanes, told reporters in Beijing.

During the 20-year period Chinese carriers will take delivery of 16 percent of the world's airplane production, the company said.

Boeing, maker of the 737 MAX and 787 Dreamliner, competes with Europe's Airbus for global dominance in the aircraft market.

The US firm says it made more than half the current Chinese commercial fleet, while Airbus says it has an almost-50 percent share.

"The market is changing, evolving," Tinseth told reporters in Beijing, saying demand for more direct flights to more destinations was being driven by factors including low-cost carriers.

"It's good for passengers, and ultimately it will be good for the aviation market here."

Only 1,400 of China's new aircraft in the next 20 years will replace existing airplanes, Boeing said, while 4,620, or 77 percent, will be additions to the fleet.

In July, Boeing raised its forecast for global aircraft demand by 4.2 percent from last year's projection, saying it expected 36,770 planes to be delivered over the next two decades in deals worth $5.2 trillion.