Re: New interceptors for the Argentine Air Force?
Pointblank, try harder. Coming here bashing china aircraft without credible facts and link. All is make up by you. You just came here with the intention of malicious attack of china products. It's useless talking to you with facts and proof. You are just a lousy loser. I will end my counter post of you here. Let the reader read thru this thread and let facts, link and truth tell them the real thing.
Chinese carriers encouraged to buy 'China made' aircraft
By Leithen Francis
China appears to have done a back-flip when it comes to its policy towards airline start-ups.
The Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) last December announced it would refrain from granting air operator's certificates (AOC) to start-ups planning to launch in 2009.
But a report today in state-run China Daily, quotes unidentified CAAC officials in Xian, as saying start-ups that plan to operate Chinese-made aircraft will find it easier to get an AOC.
The Chinese-made aircraft cited in the article are Xian Aircraft's MA60 turboprop and Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China's (Comac) ARJ21 regional jet.
Chinese aircraft-makers have had little success in selling aircraft in China because Airbus and Boeing have established strong relationships with the Chinese carriers and have established strong customer support systems. The Chinese aircraft-makers, based on past mistakes, have a relatively poor reputation for customer support.
This move by the CAAC appears to be a concerted push by the government to get local carriers to seriously look at buying the local product.
Xian Aircraft, which makes the MA60, literally has MA60s parked at its Yanliang airport base because it has too few customers. Comac has yet to deliver an aircraft but it too will be ramping up production soon."
In fact, companies like Boeing is the biggest beneficiary of government supports. For decades, US government pressure ensures not only the US market but also the likes of Japan, SKorea use only US jets. Even today, Boeing continues to receive strong support in both the commercial and military sectors.
Don't be fooled by so called innovations by the likes of Boeing. Their latest 'innovation' B787 is plagued by delays and red ink. It remains to be seen whether they can deliver on their promises or if they'll ever make a single cent from it. While Boeing continues to rely on the old and problematic 737 for profit.
When western companies feel threatened by Chinese ones, it's a bad idea to listen to their words. It's best to look at their actions.
Neither Airbus nor Boeing had plans to bring out the A320neo or B737Max until after 2020. But then Airbus changed course and announced the Neo by 2016. The 737 was forced to respond as well but at a later date due to its poor design.
Why 2015/16 ? Surprise, surprise, C919 is due out in 2016.
1. The US market is a duopoly of Boeing and Airbus, with a mix of Bombardier and Embraer products as well., In fact, there are more European Airbus aircraft flying with US airlines than Boeing aircraft right now.
2. The Boeing 787 has 821 orders for it. Boeing has already delivered the first one to ANA a few days ago.
3. Look. Comac says once they are fully spooled up (which will be a few years after introduction into service), they can deliver at best 150 C919's a year, and that's only if they get massive orders for the type (which they don't). Guess what? Boeing and Airbus produce that many A320's and 737's in a month!
The most important one that destroys your view that within 10 years the C919 will be a threat is that Comac, yes, the manufacturer, has said many times that EIS is not before 2016. Looking at not only the ARJ21 but every western program as well, C919 will NOT EIS before 2018. Second, the eventual target rate of production as stated by COMAC is only 150/yr. WHEN they achieve that,
IF they ever do, will be after both Airbus and Boeing have their superior competitors (not to mention Bombardier, and Mitsubishi among other players) available.
And the C919, even with the same engines as the A320 NEO, will only be as efficient as the current A320, for an aircraft of the same size, capability, and weight! They don't feel threatened by Comac at all. The C919 isn't real competition. Do you really think that the C919 will be a true competitor to the 320 and 737? I would be interested how it will do that. Even if they manage to make it on time and on spec (which they won't), they just can't produce the plane in great enough numbers with only 150 aircraft per year...at a maximum, (as stated by Comac), and that is after a ramp up period, with a full order book (which they don't have).
Even if the C919 ends up performing similarly to the Boeing and Airbus offerings (which in the most likely of cases, won't), the western makers literally flood the market, individually outproducing the best case Comac scenario by over 4 to one. By their own admission, Comac will not be able to fill the Chinese demand much less compete internationally.
You really don't have to believe me...by Comac's own admissions, they won't be able to compete.
Reality check: The Chinese aviation industry has not had the sort of worldwide success that the most recent major players (Embraer and Airbus) had in the aviation industry. Embraer has had considerable success in selling aircraft for a few decades, starting with the EMB-110 which sold nearly 500 copies starting in the early 1970s. The EMB-120 then sold around 350, many of them to large American regional airlines. If that hadn't caught the industry's attention the over 1000 sales of the ERJ-145 and its variants certainly did. Only after all of that did the E-Jets hit the scene in the early 2000s, by which point there was little reason to doubt Embraer or their products, and the technical support infrastructure around the world was well established.
Embraer's breakthrough came through redefining a market. No one else but Embraer sells a range of 70-120 seat regional jets with mainline comfort and economics. Airbus' breakthrough came from redefining a market. At the time, no one else but Airbus sold a regional widebody twinjet. Both companies worked really hard from day one of starting up to establish a good record of customer service, support, and innovation.
Both Embraer and Airbus entered the market with either very different aircraft or filled previously unexploited niches. Their products represented
substantial improvements of the state-of-the-art, and were major paradigm shifts when they introduced them. Comac (and the entire Chinese industry) has shown zero innovation, neither in technical solutions nor in overall design. What is Comac's "killer app" that the global market can't already get from Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier or Embraer, besides cheap? If China wants to become a participant in the international business and not just supply its (protected) home market, it must show innovation and deliver anything more substantial than just lower pricing. Lower purchase prices is not a big argument in aviation.
To many, aircraft manufacturers build aircraft with the primary purpose of competing with the incumbents, and a successful airliner will be one which becomes a threat to other airliners in its class. Once an airliner fails to become a viable competitor, it is considered a step backwards, and not "another step forward". Everyone knows that the airliner business is an unforgiving one. Fail to produce a viable model, and its liquidation and billions of dollars down the drain. A badly executed project can mean bankruptcy for a smaller manufacturer. If it was any easier, we won't have only two major global manufacturers till now. The Chinese have made 3 airliners and have made critical errors in all 3. Not promising at all.
