Both sides have valid points? Oh really? Let's test your claim in context of my post vis-a-vis Sinosoldier's message:
Sinosoldier's point on the C-919 is basically it's a step in the right direction on meeting 95% local suppliers, but COMAC still has a ways to go. I endorsed his view. What's the other side of the argument?
I have said twice, and this is my third time to say that "I was not involved in the original discussion vis-à-vis Sinosoldier and others."
If what you summarized Sinosoldier's point as he intended, I endorse that view too. And that view does not call a failure, but first step.
As I (once again) did not follow the lengthy chain,
I do not know other's view, I will not comment on them.
My reply to your post was only concerning
how and why you see the first step of a long project being a
failure. That is a legitimate question, isn't it? If you have substances in calling that a failure, I appreciate that you share with the rest. If you claim that wording is only semantic, then I got your meaning and have no intension in chasing you for the choice.