How common is it? And how does this happening to CFM-manufactured engines compared to other engine manufacturers?
COMAC C919
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
I've looked at the Weibo reports on this. I have not seen anything to see this as a big deal. Airline can delay first commercial flight for any number of reasons.
If it's doing so terribly, why is it still flying right now? I see more test flights today.
this seems written by a guy with no idea what he is talking about. He is going to base his analysis upon 29-inch HD configuration when MU already has its own real world seat configuration for A320NEO and C919. What a joke.
This is what A320NEO seat map looks like for Spirit
This is what it looks like for MU
Notice something? Spirit config leaves no pantry area and squeeze ultra tight toilets at the back. MU config has full rear pantry area and full size toilets at the back. Why do you think that is? Chinese airlines actually serve hot meals on domestic flights.
Looking at the long food menu that C919 is going to have on its first flight.
We know that in MU's own seat configurations, A320 seats 158 pax and C919 seats 164 pax. Which makes sense, because C919 is longer than A320. And it also makes sense that C919 is a little heavier because it's longer and seats more people.
MAX8 is a different issue, since 737s are narrower than other single aisle aircraft. I generally avoid 737s for that very reason.
Before new technology on Leap1-c. Many related people have said the thrust reverser get a problem due to hydraulic system.
But Leap1-c thrust reverser use electric actuation system.
Actully CFM56 engines have a higher malfunction rate than v2500 and pw1100g. But it is more economic.
Noted. Still, being an ACI binge-watcher, I'm hoping that there would never be a repeat of Lauda Air Flight 004.
Last edited:
It's not a joke, because the max. high-density configuration gives an indication of the best cabin layout efficiency the aircraft in question can theoretically achieve. It shows that the C919 can't compensate for its additional weight by taking on more passengers, because with the current door configuration there is no way to increase density beyond 174 seats. All else equal, the A320neo can theoretically fly 6 passengers more for roughly the same cost (crew/fuel/maintenance/fees), earning the airline approximately 6 additional fares in profit.
Potentially speaking, with compact emergency overwing exits like the A320neo, you could likely also get the C919 to 180. That's a relatively simple mod, which Airbus also had to go through to reach this seating density, BTW. But that still leaves you with a slightly heavier and longer (fuselage wetted area meaning viscous drag) aircraft, because of the unused area ahead of the C919's forward doors. That's space you can't reclaim nearly as easily for passenger seating, moving the main entrances is major surgery.
Of course, airlines are going to choose cabin layouts differing from the above according to their business model, chiefly by adding a business class where higher fares per passenger overcompensate the loss in seats. But then for the same size of business class section, the A320 can probably seat more economy class passengers, so the advantage remains.
Again, I understand how high density works, but that's not how these Chinese carriers operate. That kind of layout may work in Europe where everyone is happy with 29 inch pitch and 17 inch width and no food/beverage. But that doesn't work in China clearly, where airlines have to serve hot food and compete against comfortable and fast high speed rail network. The emergency exit row seating can be sold as Y+ or just more desirable seating. That's how MU A320 configured things.
Again, MU's A320 configuration seats 158 and C919 seats 164.
Also, I'd prefer if people don't try to educate me on revenue management in airlines. Let's just say I've spent a lot of times looking at these things. I was away from this forum for 5 years and they were all spent looking at airlines and frequent flyer programs.
That is once again the reason that I am skeptical to anything from open source about C919. How could more fuel and longer range maintains the same MTOW? Physically impossible. There is always something missing or incomplete.
So my point remains.
Do you know that Audi produces L variants of its lineup ONLY in Chinese market, such as A-6L etc.? It's wheelbase is about 10cm longer than Audi sold in the rest of the world.
Experiences or knowledge abstained from the "world" does not necessarily hold values in China.
Like buying a longer car, Chinese are willing to pay for that extra leg room and COMAC is catering that demand like Audi does. There is no technical efficiency (superiority) behind it.
Last edited:
Did North American/European carriers *always* operate that way? Can Chinese carriers not operate that way? Do the Chinese carriers not want the flexibility to operate that way in the future?
Like bro, ULCC isn't some concept that is strictly forbidden in China.
Considering only 1/4 to 1/5 people in China actually has ever flown in a plane - there are plenty of people who can't afford to fly that would like to fly if its operated at a cheaper price to get somewhere faster than the K-series trains on a hard seat.
Seating configuration is primarily a carrier's choice. Chinese carriers can squeeze more but they don't choose to do so like European/American carriers.
Not sure of Europe, but China and US is very different in travel mode. HSR is best option within 500km range, equally fast as airplane but more comfortable and cheaper. US does not have HSR, so airplane is the only choice even if uncomfortably squeezed. In China, one only take the flight if one has to go beyond 500km and fast. These people are rich enough to pay a few hundred Yuan for the comfort.
A person who can not afford to fly today would NOT choose to fly even if the price per seat is lowered by a few percent by squeezing in one more row. If that person want to go faster than K trains on a hard seat, he/she can choose HSR with an airline grade seat and much larger leg room.
Basically, China's HSR has killed short haul cheap airline business.
Last edited: