COMAC C919

jli88 said:

Sorry If I am reposting this.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I would hope that COMAC is really careful in deciding who they sell to. Countries/Operators with limited ability/experience in operating aircrafts must not be tolerated. Aviation is a safety and perception business, and even one mishap can have a decade long impact on reputation. Better to focus on domestic Chinese market than go and sell C919s with subsidies to unexperienced players where chances of mishaps are higher.

Click to expand...

From the practical standpoint, if the aim is to supply the domestic market first then they will not have capacity to export for a few decades. The projection is up to 3000 narrowbodies and regional jets in the coming decade. They are aiming for 150 C919 a year in 5 years (before 2030) but that to me is very ambitious and even half of that would be fantastic.

The main point here is there is no way COMAC can fulfill the domestic demand. Exports are not a financial necessity for COMAC any more than exporting HSR is for CRRC.

But that captive market also gives COMAC massive confidence to experiment with exports -- and getting feedback from global customers so that they are not developing in isolation. They not dependent on exports and can do things carefully..

Yes, I think you have a point in not having a MA60-like issue where aircraft were sold to small less established airlines which resulted in accidents. But the issue is the airlines not the country they operate in.

Nigeria Air is a national carrier. By definition, it should be better -- at least better supported -- than some of the smaller players that bought the MA60. It is encumbent upon COMAC to develop proper support and service.

tphuang said:

You should be careful with what you are saying about some countries, because it may come off quite racist.

Both Malaysia and Indonesia have had infamous crashes in past 10 years. I don't know why you would use them as your golden standard.

Click to expand...

I am unsure how this message can come across, all of what I was saying is that you should not sell C919 at a subsidy to countries who don't have well developed aviation industry.

Let's focus only on South East Asia for instance.

In terms of airlines, these are the top 10 airlines




Air Asia, Malaysian Airlines are Malaysian.
Lion Air is Indonesian.


There will be incidents everywhere including in the West. I can agree that Malaysian Airlines probably isn't up there in safety with Chinese, South Korean, or American airlines. However, Malaysian Airlines still has a big commercial aviation base and expertise.

Cambodia and Myanmar on the other hand (where MA60 were sold) have very limited commercial aviation industry and expertise.

Anyways my 2 cents.

tphuang said:

many of these things are not up to COMAC itself, but rather airlines. Airlines have to select CJ1000 for CJ1000 to be installed on C919. That's going to take some convincing.

Click to expand...

You still really believe this. Look, the Chinese Airlines are nearly all state owned. All it takes is a directive from the top. It does not even need to be made public.
Look at what happened with the spike in C919 orders. All the major Chinese carriers are ordering the aircraft.

I have heard similar arguments from Western publications. "Making transport aircraft isn't like making high-speed rail where there is only a single operator" and other such arguments. The Chinese airline market is huge and nearly all state owned.

tphuang said:

You are already dealing with a new airliner project and now you also have to work with parts which you may not feel confident about.

Click to expand...

I don't think the Chinese regulatory agencies would allow serial production of the engine to start if they weren't completely sure it was reliable. Even the Russians, under the immense pressure of not being able to import transport aircraft, are not risking going into production with untested components and aircraft.
In Soviet times it might have happened.

tphuang said:

Remember, airlines already have relationship with all these Western suppliers due to A320s and 737s they have. Having additional suppliers and maintenance team for them increase cost.

Click to expand...

I doubt the 737 will have much of a future in China.

gelgoog said:

I doubt the 737 will have much of a future in China.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

China is not gonna take in any new US made Boeings lol.

gelgoog said:

You still really believe this. Look, the Chinese Airlines are nearly all state owned. All it takes is a directive from the top. It does not even need to be made public.
Look at what happened with the spike in C919 orders. All the major Chinese carriers are ordering the aircraft.

I have heard similar arguments from Western publications. "Making transport aircraft isn't like making high-speed rail where there is only a single operator" and other such arguments. The Chinese airline market is huge and nearly all state owned.


I don't think the Chinese regulatory agencies would allow serial production of the engine to start if they weren't completely sure it was reliable. Even the Russians, under the immense pressure of not being able to import transport aircraft, are not risking going into production with untested components and aircraft.
In Soviet times it might have happened.


I doubt the 737 will have much of a future in China.

Click to expand...

even if 737 doesn't have much of a future in China, it will still take quite a few years to exit all the fleet. All that maintenance related.

the issue with engines is not just the safety but also the cost of operation, maintenance & rate of breakdown and things like that. All of which will take time to resolve. So you need operators. It will take some convincing for the big 3 in China to operate two engine types for C919. I think you are going to see CJ1000A in some smaller airlines first and maybe government agencies

tphuang said:

even if 737 doesn't have much of a future in China, it will still take quite a few years to exit all the fleet. All that maintenance related.

the issue with engines is not just the safety but also the cost of operation, maintenance & rate of breakdown and things like that. All of which will take time to resolve. So you need operators. It will take some convincing for the big 3 in China to operate two engine types for C919. I think you are going to see CJ1000A in some smaller airlines first and maybe government agencies

Click to expand...

China has been exceptionally careful with the C919 -- it must be one of, if not the, most heavily-tested airliners ever. I see the same with the CJ1000A.

The government simply do not force the Big Three with mandates. Things run well in the smaller entities and then we'll see limited steps in one of the majors and then more adoption from the rest of them over time. We saw this with the ARJ-21 and especially with the ongoing C919 induction.

I would have thought replacing the government's executive transport fleet of ageing B737 and A320s would be an obvious route for getting C919 with CJ1000A into service?

Maikeru said:

I would have thought replacing the government's executive transport fleet of ageing B737 and A320s would be an obvious route for getting C919 with CJ1000A into service?

Click to expand...

Why would they do that.

The whole point of risk reduction is to implement initial products in representative but less risky operating environments (specifically in terms if impact if something goes wrong) before scaling up to broader utilization.

Blitzo said:

Why would they do that.

The whole point of risk reduction is to implement initial products in representative but less risky operating environments (specifically in terms if impact if something goes wrong) before scaling up to broader utilization.

Click to expand...

You can hide the poor performance of early versions of the systems with the secrecy the armed forces allows. As well it is easier to nationally subsidize the project under the guise of national security and still be in compliance with the WTO.

The problem of doing this is that it will help to justify the US government in sanctioning COMAC. I think you've got to build up the supply chain as best as possible before doing this.

Buying Russian aircraft, or designing a military aircraft would be solutions.

pipaster said:

You can hide the poor performance of early versions of the systems with the secrecy the armed forces allows. As well it is easier to nationally subsidize the project under the guise of national security and still be in compliance with the WTO.

The problem of doing this is that it will help to justify the US government in sanctioning COMAC. I think you've got to build up the supply chain as best as possible before doing this.

Buying Russian aircraft, or designing a military aircraft would be solutions.

Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with what I wrote?