COMAC C919 - China's first modern airliner

plawolf said:

You need local FAA approval and certification to fly in a country. Without such certifications, the C919 would simply not be allowed to fly in foreign countries' airspace, which will massively limit the routes the plane could be used for, and thus its popularity and appeal to airlines.

Click to expand...

Just my 2 cents observation ... ...
IMHO, ... ...


Excellent observation !!

Yes, I have NOT considered this issue of ( No--Fly--Zone ) and the airspace of the blocking nation ( Zero--Sum--mindset nation, instead of Abundance--mindset )
limiting C919 routes ... ...

Therefore forcing C919 to fly around these blocking nation airspace.


Based on present day political climate:

The blocking nations will be ... ...

US, ... Japan, ... Philippine, ... India, ... Australia ?, ... France ?, ...

Thus, it is utmost important for regular Chinese citizens ( using day to day street interactions ) to be Super Friendly with other ASEAN nations ( except Philippine ), Pakistan, Russia and SCO member nations, Mongolia, and all other nations on Earth that allow COMAC C919 to Fly-by.


*** Is local Aviation Administration certification a necessity,
in order to do a ( Passing--by or Flying--by ) ?

------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully, the pictures are correct.
5 COMAC C919 internal pictures ... ...


#1



#2



#3



#4



#5




Source: ERRYMATH ( a superb nice site )

SamuraiBlue said:

Mitsubishi Regional Jet(MRJ) already has 223 confirmed order and another 164 options mainly by foreign airliners if you must know.
The reason why they have such early success is because they had tied strategic relationship with Boeing in providing the after sales support which is essential in marketing commercial airliners.
.

Click to expand...

For an aircraft maker less than 500 aircraft is no profit, the MRJ once it pass the minimal number of 500 aircraft sold can be considered starting to make profits

Schumacher said:

Oh brother, 'aren't that different', 'looking like'. Look, I know you're still bitter from our last encounter but at least learn a bit more about the subject before typing so as not to look like you're talking about fashion okay ?
Using the same engine ? You obviously don't know about the compromise they had to make to fit it on the MAX.

Click to expand...

He is right, the engine is very important, Embraer decided not to make a larger aircraft than E-190 because they said with the C919, MS-21, MRJ and Bombardier C series, the market was over crowed.

Embraer followed the same philosophy Boeing and Airbus took, re-engine the existing models add new electronics and materials and you get a very competitive aircraft.
E-190E

Airbus's A320neo has also got a substantial head start on orders, with 4,100 reported in August 2015, compared to the 737 MAX's 2,869.

However, with the 737 Max promising to be 20% more fuel-efficient than the current 737, and with Boeing claiming to have operating costs that are 8% lower per seat than its nearest competitor, the 737 Max team will be hoping to close the gap.

Click to expand...

Just look at the orders and you will see why the old aircraft are not old, they are in reality new machines

LE BOURGET, France—

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

announced new orders for up to 93 E-Jet-family aircraft from

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, SkyWest, Chinese start-up Colorful Guizhou, and aircraft-leasing company Aircastle.

Aircastle signed a firm order for 25 E-Jet-E2s, consisting of 15 E190-E2s and 10 E195-E2s, with an additional 25 purchase rights for 15 E190-E2s and 10 E195-E2s. The lessor’s deliveries are scheduled to begin in 2018 for the E190-E2, and in 2019 for the E195-E2, at a rate of roughly seven units per year through 2021. The new order brings the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

-E2 backlog to 267 firm orders plus 373 options and purchase rights.

Click to expand...

b787 said:

For an aircraft maker less than 500 aircraft is no profit, the MRJ once it pass the minimal number of 500 aircraft sold can be considered starting to make profits

Click to expand...

Do you have empirical evidence to back up your assertion?

the minimum number is based more on the cost of R&D and production, minimum number of units that turn from the red to the black would vary based on that. 500 is a ball park.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

the minimum number is based more on the cost of R&D and production, minimum number of units that turn from the red to the black would vary based on that. 500 is a ball park.

Click to expand...

In my lifetime I have undertaken countless financial feasibility studies. There is a threshold cross over point but that itself is subject to so many variables that each is unique and highly subjective depending on the industry, tax structure, financing risk, product life cycle, after sales support, distribution cost, manufacturing and supply chain construct and the list just go on and on. Unless you are privy to specific analysis, it is simply indefensible to even quote a ball park number.

Brumby said:

In my lifetime I have undertaken countless financial feasibility studies. There is a threshold cross over point but that itself is subject to so many variables that each is unique and highly subjective depending on the industry, tax structure, financing risk, product life cycle, after sales support, distribution cost, manufacturing and supply chain construct and the list just go on and on. Unless you are privy to specific analysis, it is simply indefensible to even quote a ball park number.

Click to expand...

It's quite feasible to make a broad estimate like that given the known factors of market type, initial cost of manufacturing and assembly of subcomponents and airframe, labor costs etc based on existing information on company cost structure, supplier base and economies of scale of said base, market size et al compared to existing producers in the market. At a minimum I would expect the threshold level to be more than what Boeing or Airbus would need to break for the A320neo or 737 Max with their already mature manufacturing, support and marketing base plus pool of existing customers.

Being that the C919 is as much a means to an end as much as an end in itself, even if the C919 falls short of its desired production goal wrt costs it is still very much a worthwhile project for AVIC to have done in any event.

A Japanese MRJ is not in the same class at all as the C919.

montyp165 said:

It's quite feasible to make a broad estimate like that given the known factors of market type, initial cost of manufacturing and assembly of subcomponents and airframe, labor costs etc based on existing information on company cost structure, supplier base and economies of scale of said base, market size et al compared to existing producers in the market. At a minimum I would expect the threshold level to be more than what Boeing or Airbus would need to break for the A320neo or 737 Max with their already mature manufacturing, support and marketing base plus pool of existing customers.

Click to expand...

Hence my initial question was whether there is any empirical evidence to support that assertion. It is one thing to make broad estimate based on assumptions but the devil are in the details to draw any reasonable conclusions. At a minimum I would like to see a credible source to back that assertion or else it is a statement without warrant.