COMAC C919

nemo said:

As long as Chinese produce a competitive product, even the lack of US/EU certification is less of a problem.

Click to expand...

Aside from what other members already pointed out, the power of certification can work by proxy.

Airlines that fly C919 domestically within China may operate in EU/US, and those operations also require approval. That means, those airlines can be pressured to not operate the C919 elsewhere in the world, by threatening to discontinue their certificate of operation.

Engineer said:

Aside from what other members already pointed out, the power of certification can work by proxy.

Airlines that fly C919 domestically within China may operate in EU/US, and those operations also require approval. That means, those airlines can be pressured to not operate the C919 elsewhere in the world, by threatening to discontinue their certificate of operation.

Click to expand...

Read what I had posted above.
The airliners will not accept a commercial passenger airplane without any coverage. The company may go belly-up immediately with just one incident even without casualties.In other words it's not a conspiracy, just a matter of common sense based on risk assessment.

KIENCHIN said:

Mr. Sino Soldier I thought you say the HUF is imported technology. I want to throw in my 2 cents worth when it comes to transfer of technology from Bombadier. No company that I had worked for which manufacturers in the US and China share no how when it comes to the final details of the same product they manufacturer not so much management would not allow it but the technical guys would not share it 100% for fear of eventually loosing market share and jobs which is human nature. To think that Bombardier somehow had transferred all they know about manufacturing the C919 just so they can have a foot in the door of the Chinese market, I don't think so.

Click to expand...

That's true. I don't think Bombardier would be that stupid as to transfer their core technology knowhow that's essentially their bread and butter to Comac in any kind of cooperation that is said to have been agreed between them.

Gloire_bb said:

They're necessary if you want to fly there. And flying to "western" countries is a must...

Click to expand...

To and from developed nations, yes, but traffic outside the developed nations is already more than 50%, and will rise to 70% within a decade. Explain to me again why is it a "must"? Certainly it would be a very good thing to have, but a necessity?

TerraN_EmpirE said:

I think you misunderstand the Certification. It's not just a piece of Paper it's a full inspection and Safety standard set demanded of the Aircraft, Maintenance and performance.
Most Sovereign nations have some form of Aviation safety agency that sets or Accepts safety standards. The US, Canada and EU standards overlap and by Trilateral agreement are accepted across the thress so they are used as a interchangeable standard.
Many nations accept the US or EU standard so that they do not need to set their own standards.
Others Accept certifications from other nations so as to prove that it was certified. the Xian MA 60 was never push for a US or EU certification, And has had a fairly high number of accidents.

Click to expand...

Of course air related regulation covers more than the aircraft, but for simplicity's sake let's limit it to regulations that will allow you to sell the aircraft.

The point I am making is that all China needs to do is to show Chinese certification standards is as good as US/EU standards, than China can force US/EU to accept Chinese standard as interchangeable with their own standards.

And even without US/EU certification, China managed to sell civilian aircraft to foreign buyers. As for the higher accident rate -- that also has to do with the quality of the pilots/operators that operates the actual aircraft. If one aims for low ends of the market, chances are those operators tend to be budget conscious and take shortcuts in training, operation, and maintenance. Higher end aircraft tend to have better pilots, operation, and maintenance budget to protect the higher investment. I am not aware of any accidents that was caused by the deficiency of Chinese standards -- if I am wrong, please correct me.

SamuraiBlue said:

Read what I had posted above.
The airliners will not accept a commercial passenger airplane without any coverage. The company may go belly-up immediately with just one incident even without casualties.In other words it's not a conspiracy, just a matter of common sense based on risk assessment.

Click to expand...

China also have insurance carriers, and they would cover the aircraft if the aircraft has Chinese certification.

nemo said:

Explain to me again why is it a "must"? Certainly, it would be a very good thing to have, but a necessity?

Click to expand...

Well, my PoW is what main foreign customers for C919 for years to come are likely to be from developed nations in more or less mutual beneficial(or politically motivated) deals.
If it's not a country like North Korea(which doesn't perform flights to "western world" anyways) - it's a question of ability to fully employ limited fleet.

nemo said:

China also have insurance carriers, and they would cover the aircraft if the aircraft has Chinese certification.

Click to expand...

Maybe but there will be no reinsurance companies that will pick it up to spread the cost.
Basically non-life insurance is a global syndicate that hedges liability by covering one another.
If a single insurance company was to pick it up on their own, statistically speaking the liability risk will out weigh the profit it may obtain against the loss they may see from one single incident.

Gloire_bb said:

Nope, it doesn't work this way. Unless you want them thrown off market, off course.

1.You may "ask" them, but product(whole product, not just the plane itself) will have to be competitive enough across the board. Because "asked"company is an enterprise, it actually can be somewhat patriotic in its choice, it can be threatened and/or rewarded, but all this to certain degree.

First and foremost - air transportation is just wealthier business than aircraft production.
At worst, you'll get situation when your liners will be considered as a national "bribe": buy some of this stuff to operate unhindered, and park them somewhere.

2.Such overconcentration on "closed" home market is deadly in its own right.
Above Russian liners were remembered. Yes, there were a lot of reasons they were so unsuccessful after the fall, primarily the very disintegration of SU itself.
But there were others(reasons), and many of them closely related to wishes of one main "customer". Ssy, it was Aeroflot, which specifically asked for 3rd crew position on tu-204 and not Tupolev.

Click to expand...

Rhetoric rhetoric,Your argument fell flat against the firm order shown below, which mostly are Chinese airlines order. Remember there is more Chinese airlines than shown below as this list is not comprehensive
Also this is initial order as air traffic grew they will add more order. As is now there is enough momentum for C919 to recoup their investment. But the biggest prize is the development of private Chinese Aerospace supplier ecosystem. Sofar those network are dominated by few SOE company and military order doesn't justify private company to get involve into aerospace industry. this play into Goverment wish for more dual technology of military and civilian tech
Which if successful will invigorate the military supplier too as now there are more competition

Of course C919 has to prove themselves to be efficient, good service and good logistic. But based on estimates performance and use of the same engine as Airbus, Boeing
They should not be far off

Again no comparison to Soviet because the Soviet designed plane has never reached the efficiency, noise level, or the service and logistic excellence of their competitor

Orders[

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

]
At the November 2010 , Comac announced orders for 55 C919 aircraft from six airlines, with an additional 45 options. The purchasing airlines or lessors included , , , , Leasing Company, and . On 19 October 2011, Chinese ordered 45 C919s and agreed to be the launch customer. On 11 November 2014, Comac announced at the 2014 Zhuhai Airshow that 's aircraft leasing division made a firm commitment for 30 C919s, and that total orders were now up to 450 aircraft.

At the June 2015 , Leasing signed a letter of intent for 50 C919s, becoming one of Comac's largest customers, and signed a letters of intent for seven C919s and seven ARJ21s, intended for the start-up Puren Airlines. In November 2016 COMAC has received an order for 20 C919s including 5 firm from Financial Leasing and for 36 C919s from Financial Leasing including 18 firm.

SamuraiBlue said:

Maybe but there will be no reinsurance companies that will pick it up to spread the cost.
Basically non-life insurance is a global syndicate that hedges liability by covering one another.
If a single insurance company was to pick it up on their own, statistically speaking the liability risk will out weigh the profit it may obtain against the loss they may see from one single incident.

Click to expand...

China has reinsurance company Here it is
China Reinsurance (Group) Corporation (hereinafter “China Re”) was co-founded by the Ministry of Finance of the People’s Republic of China and the Central Huijin Investment Company Limited with a registered capital of RMB42,479,808,085. The Ministry of Finance and the Central Huijin Investment Co., Ltd. hold 12.72% and 71.56% of the shares, respectively.

　　China Re originated from the People’s Insurance Company of China, which was founded in October 1949. In October 2007, it was restructured into a joint-stock limited company. By November 2015, China Re held controlling stakes in 5 domestic subsidiaries, namely, China Property & Casualty Reinsurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter "China Re P&C"), China Life Reinsurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter "China Re Life"), China Continent Property & Casualty Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter "China Continent"), China Re Asset Management Company Ltd. (hereinafter "China Re Asset"), and Huatai Insurance Agency & Consulting Service Ltd. (hereinafter "Huatai Insurance Agency"). It has two overseas subsidiaries, namely, China Re UK Limited, China Re Underwriting Agency Co., Ltd., and three representative offices, namely, New York Representative Office, London Representative Office and Hong Kong Representative Office. On 26 October, 2015, China Re (stock code: 1508.HK) was officially listed on the main board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange and commenced trading.

　　China Re aims to become a world-class diversified reinsurance group with a leading domestic market position and superior risk management capabilities by continuing our market-oriented reforms, professional operation and internationalisation. China Re endeavours to achieve such objectives through in-depth cultivation of the domestic market and continued expansion in the international market, and by strengthening our core reinsurance business, expanding our primary insurance, asset management and other businesses and capitalising on our distinctive competitive advantages.

　　Market position

　　China Re is now the Asia’s largest and the world’s eighth largest reinsurer in terms of reinsurance premium income. As China’s sole state-owned reinsurance group, it has always been the main channel of reinsurance in China.

　　Brand strength

　　China Re is supported by powerful shareholders and enjoys strong capital strength. China Re has been rated "a(excellent)" by A.M. Best for six consecutive years with a stable outlook. In 2014, China Re was rated "a+" by Standard & poor's with a stable outlook.

　　Business structure

　　China Re is an integrated and well-constructed reinsurance group with well-established core business, and it has a complete industrial chain covering reinsurance, direct insurance, asset management and insurance brokerage.

　　Development capacity

　　With extensive domestic connections, a nationwide service network, diversified domestic and overseas business channels, China Re is well positioned to sustain its business development and achieve profitable growth.

taxiya said:

Ok, so MwRYum's key goal is the final ultimate goal, not the first step. Note, I don't use his word "entire" as most of us know that is not possible nor profitable to do, and I believe MwRYum himself did not really mean it if I am right about him. In this sense, he was talking about the final step, while you were talking about the first step. You two were focusing on two aspects, two ends of the same chain.

I am afraid using the word "failure" only makes yourself more than likely being understood the opposite way than you intended to because you and MyRYum are addressing different points of the project. So I still think an alternative expression will probably serve your purpose better.

BTW, it is from this, I had the sense that "both sides have valid points" only different angles. Hope this answer your previous question in #152

Click to expand...

Whatever taxiya. I think you're arguing just to argue on points that makes little difference.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Where is Lockheed? They got pushed out after the failure of a commercial liner. Where is MD? They had a series of products fail and were bought out by Boeing.

If the only buys (there a few foreign ones) are Chinese then the success is artificial and the product will fail.
75 % may be accurate but how much is the Chinese domestic market vs the global.one. An isolation based market is a dead end market.

Click to expand...

Actually global market is the less accurate term. It should be compared with rather a Chinese market vs. a Western market in terms of gdp, population, wealth and economy of scale. How often does a third world market countries can afford airplanes in large scales like in All of the western nations and China?