back to article China's single aisle passenger jet – the C919 – likely to be certified next week

Two recent flights of the China's domestically made single-aisle passenger jet, the C919, have lent credence to rumors that the nation's aviation authorities are set to issue it an airworthiness certification – and by doing so, give Boeing and Airbus some competition. The narrow-body airliner passed flight tests in late July, …

  1. Ken G Silver badge
    Holmes

    That's how Airbus started

    I don't think it'll make major inroads in Europe or North America but this or future models should pick up traction on other continents. Boeing are vulnerable since the launch of their 737 CrashMaster 3200 or whatever it's called now.

    1. Lars Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: That's how Airbus started

      It's also how Boeing started or what are you driving at.

      1. thenitz

        Re: That's how Airbus started

        No, Boeing was actually the first on the market with commercial jets. Douglas followed after a delay, and for a while those two had the market between themselves. Then Airbus showed up in the '70s as a third plane maker, with heavy European government backing; they caught momentum in the '80s with the A320, and eventually Douglas disappeared.

        Now we have again two major manufacturers - and a third one shows up, now with heavy Chinese government backing. Not too dissimilar.

        1. VoiceOfTruth Silver badge

          Re: That's how Airbus started

          -> Boeing was actually the first on the market with commercial jets.

          Er, De Havilland Comet?

          Anyway, the sanctions will soon be in. CFM will be prohibited from supplying engines for "national sense of insecurity" reasons. The thoroughly discredited FAA will find reasons not to approve this aircraft. Etc.

          1. Major N

            Re: That's how Airbus started

            yeah, the Mk1 Comet is also the inspiration behind the MAX :P

            1. spireite Silver badge

              Re: That's how Airbus started

              At least the Comet was groundbreaking compared to the Max8..

              (and I don't refer to the impact craters here)

        2. Spazturtle Silver badge

          Re: That's how Airbus started

          On paper it was Douglas that disappeared but in practice it was Boeing. When they merged the Boeing managers were let go and the ones who had run Douglas into the ground were kept on, and many of the senior engineers from Boeing were let go and replaced by the younger and cheaper ones from Douglas.

          1. Lon24

            Re: That's how Airbus started

            Yea, but wasn't it Douglas engineers that built the ubiquitous DC-3/Dakota - once described as a collection of nuts & bolts flying in close formation.

            Mind you it was Chinese engineers who took a partially destroyed DC-3 at the beginning of WW2 and stuck a DC-2 wing to replace the missing bit. It flew - though apparently with a bit of yaw. If only they had MCAS to compensate.

        3. Potemkine! Silver badge

          Re: That's how Airbus started

          No, Boeing was actually the first on the market with commercial jets.

          Nope.

          "The British de Havilland Comet was the first jet airliner to fly (1949), the first in service (1952), and the first to offer a regular transatlantic service (1958). One hundred and fourteen of all versions were built. However, the first jet airliner to provide a sustained and dependable service was the Soviet Tupolev Tu-104 (201 built) which was the only jet airliner in operation worldwide between 1956 and 1958."

          with heavy European government backing;

          When Boeing has no backing at all, for instance through military-related contracts /s

          == Bring us Dabbsy back! ==

          1. Joe W Silver badge

            Re: That's how Airbus started

            How about Junkers? The Ju 52 was (is!) iconic.

            1. ChrisC Silver badge

              Re: That's how Airbus started

              *Jet* airliner???

              1. Lars Silver badge
                Coat

                Re: That's how Airbus started

                @Chris C

                "*Jet* airliner???"

                "The Airbus product line started with the A300 in 1972, the world's first twin-aisle, twin-engined aircraft. A shorter, re-winged, re-engined variant of the A300 is known as the A310.

                Building on its success, Airbus launched the A320, the first commercial jet to use a digital fly-by-wire control system. The A320 has been, and continues to be, a major commercial success. ".

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus

                1. ChrisC Silver badge

                  Re: That's how Airbus started

                  Yes, thanks, I know how *Airbus* started, but that's entirely irrelevant to the comment I was responding to, which seemed to be suggesting that *Junkers* (courtesy of their very definitely not jet-powered Ju-52) ought to be part of the discussion, despite the discussion being about who came up with the first jet airliner...

          2. werdsmith Silver badge

            Re: That's how Airbus started

            Must not forget the 1955 Sud-Aviation Caravelle that was developed using some parts from DH Comet. It also flew before the 707. Europe has been producing jet aircraft before Airbus. Sud-Aviation merged into Aerospatiale and then became the major part of Airbus.

          3. The Oncoming Scorn Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: That's how Airbus started

            The British de Havilland Comet was the first jet airliner to fly (1949), the first in service (1952), the first to offer a regular transatlantic service (1958) & the first to offer a in-flight retractable sunroof.

            FTFY.

            1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

              Re: That's how Airbus started

              >he first to offer a in-flight retractable sunroof.

              Although the Boeing 737 was the first reusable convertible airliner

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: That's how Airbus started

              114 produced. 26 hull-loss accidents. Somebody had to figure out which mushrooms were poisonous.

        4. Missing Semicolon Silver badge

          Re: That's how Airbus started

          Douglas disappeared? There's those that say it was Boeing that actually is no more - whatever it says on the letterhead.

          1. anothercynic Silver badge

            Re: That's how Airbus started

            Those that say Boeing disappeared are right... most of senior management at Boeing are either ex-McDonnell Douglas, ex-GE, or of their management style... It's an ugly thing.

      2. anothercynic Silver badge

        Re: That's how Airbus started

        No. Boeing got started building mail planes in the early 20th century, and then bombers for the US Air Force for the second World War. *THAT* was their bread and butter, not passenger traffic. They then took some of their bombers, and just like the Brits converted them to passenger use. Their first clean sheet design for a passenger jet came from something they designed for the USAF (model 367).

        They built other jets, but they were for military use (the B-47 Stratojet being one of the first).

        Airbus on the other hand started with a wide-body twin-aisle because that's what airlines said they were looking for... things that were better than the 707 (narrowbody, single-aisle, four engines), DC-8 (same), or their later contemporaries (like the DC-10 and the L-1011). It was a growing market, so it made sense for Airbus to start there.

        COMAC knows that the short-haul single-aisle regional market is where most of the pressure is right now (see waiting lists for Airbus A32x and Boeing 737 aircraft - they're *huge*), so stepping in with a domestic model for the domestic airlines makes sense. The Sukhoi Superjet was for a similar market, and it'll get refined with American parts designed out because of anti-Russian sanctions. And the MC-21 is also heading for commercial service, sooo...

      3. Ken G Silver badge

        Re: That's how Airbus started

        No, William E. Boeing founded Aero Products Company in Seattle, Washington in 1916 and in 1917, renamed it Boeing Airplane Company.

        Airbus was a government backed initiative from the beginning to avoid a strategic reliance on overseas suppliers. That's what I'm getting at when I say they started the same way.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: That's how Airbus started

      It could be a serious threat to what's left of Russia's civil aviation programme. The Sukhoi SuperJet has been a sales flop and the MC-21 is still a long way from flying passengers - even more now that the Russians have to try and replace all of its myriad Western components.

      China and Russia announced a joint venture for a long-range C929 which is supposedly going to fly next year. Whether it will or not is another question as Russia's invasion of Ukraine has pretty much shut down any possibility of using Western avionics and engines. Neither Russia or China can produce competitive engines or onboard systems at the moment.

      What will hold the C919 and its successors back is whether Comac can offer the sort of world-wide servicing and support network that Boeing and Airbus offer to their users. No point buying a Chinese airliner unless it is easy to keep in the skies.

    3. the Jim bloke

      Re: That's how Airbus started

      We are still flying around in Fokker F-100s, and I have more faith in them than the current crapcrop from Boeing.

      This sounds like its the same size/role, so if Qantas wants to replace its 30+ year-old work horses with something presumably more economical to run...

  2. teknopaul

    Xi just needs to let people out of their flats in Beijing to stimulate demand.

    1. khjohansen

      Russian market?

      There's a nice market open in sanctioned Russia - if China has risk-ready capital!

      1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

        Re: Russian market?

        Russia has a whole fleet of Boeing and Airbus planes that they impounded after EU/US sanctions were applied after their invasion of Ukraine.

        Those (spares willing) will keep their airlines in business for years without needing to buy from China.

        AFAIK, there are close to 300 airframes involved.

        1. Zolko Silver badge

          Re: Russian market?

          Russia has also a nationally developed equivalent: the MC-21. With Russian engines (PD-14)

          1. crayon

            Re: Russian market?

            Under sanctions they've had to replace dozens of foreign parts with indigenous ones. So those foreigners have lost a market and gained a competitor.

            Same thing is happening with all those sanctions piled onto Chinese companies. They will be losing an even bigger market and gaining a potentially even more formidable competitor.

            1. SkippyBing

              Re: Russian market?

              Going by the quality of Russian engineering seen to date in Ukraine I would not want to get on a A320/B737 with counterfeit Russian parts...

              1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

                Re: Russian market?

                >Going by the quality of Russian engineering seen to date in Ukraine

                Going by the quality of German engineering seen on D-Day, I will be handing back my BMW !

            2. Bitsminer Silver badge

              Re: Russian market?

              ISTR that the airframe certification rules require any and all spare parts installed also must be certified.

              Installation of grey market or homebrew parts results in a noncertifiable airframe that cannot be flown. At least, not outside of Russia.

              Their collection of aircraft may soon become worthless.

              1. irrelevant

                Re: Russian market?

                From what I read, around about the time Russia effectively confiscated all the planes they had on lease, as soon as they stop using certified parts or maintenance companies, the whole plane would need to be pretty much torn apart and every part checked and recertified before it would be allowed to fly again anywhere else. The cost of doing this would probably exceed their book value, thus they are effectively worthless already.

                1. anothercynic Silver badge

                  Re: Russian market?

                  Lessors like BOC Aviation have already written off or written down most of their lease inventory that was based in or around Russia. They won't even want the planes back, they're a loss.

        2. A.P. Veening Silver badge

          Re: Russian market?

          Those (spares willing) will keep their airlines in business for years without needing to buy from China.

          They will have to cannibalise some of them to keep the remainder flying as spare parts won't be arriving in Russia, so the number of those airframes actually flying will rapidly come down.

          1. ChrisC Silver badge

            Re: Russian market?

            "the number of those airframes actually flying will rapidly come down"

            Not cannibalising the available airframes would have much the same effect, albeit with the added detrimental effect on Russian aviation safety records...

            1. C 7

              Re: Russian market?

              What's to prevent Aeroflop maintenance folks driving over to Kazakhstan or Xiostan and coming back with a truck full of parts from someone who *is* allowed to buy them under the current sanctions? Who in those countries is going to report it? Obviously they would have to spread out the purchases a bit so it's less obvious, but if all of the brands of "Make Great Airways for Glory of Dear Leader and CCP" increased their parts orders by 5% and shuffled off the extra parts to Comrade Vlad, it could probably fly under the radar better than anything Russia has used in Ukraine.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Russian market?

                End use certificates, the verification of these, and the cessation of supply if sanction breaches are detected. Basically, unless you have a fleet of A320s and fit the parts to those, then suppliers get into trouble for selling you parts that you've not got a valid reason to buy.

                1. C 7

                  Re: Russian market?

                  But, how much verification is done in the real world? And, are these parts serialized in some manner?

                  Perhaps they are... the closest I've come to buying commercial aircraft parts is shopping at the Boeing Surplus Store as a kid (may it RIP). That was mostly tools, old test equipment, and the random solenoid valve here and there.

                  1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

                    Re: Russian market?

                    Every last fscking nut and bolt. That's why even bone-yard aircraft coffee machines are worth $$$$$

                    Any parts supplier that doesn't want permanent bans from the USA at best, and visits from unsympathetic men in acronym-ed windcheaters at worst, is going to be very careful.

                    They could probably buy scrapped parts from crashed African freight airlines - definitely the sort of thing you want flying over your capital.

                  2. anothercynic Silver badge

                    Re: Russian market?

                    Every single jet flown on European, US, or Far East registers will have been checked to yazoo.

                    That's why some airlines are banned from European and US airspace, because they either have lax maintenance records (or none at all), or their organisation is not being very forthcoming (or compliant) with ICAO and IATA standards.

        3. Mishak Silver badge

          in business for years

          If it weren't for the service items that have time-limited lives.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Russian market?

        Good luck getting Russia to use CFM engines, but now that you mention it, China doesn't always follow the rules :)

  3. alain williams Silver badge

    Should we be making lots of airplanes ?

    What with the effect of aviation on the climate.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Should we be making lots of airplanes ?

      If there were climate activists in the stone age, we would still be in the stone age!

      Yes, of course we should continue to make Airplanes, Cars, Space Rockets, Computers, Cellphones, Electronics and all the other things that are part of 21st century life. Our civilisation cannot go back to being cave-dwelling hunter gatherers in a futile attempt to keep the ever-changing climate static at our preferred temperature.

      1. heyrick Silver badge

        Re: Should we be making lots of airplanes ?

        Nobody is saying to go back to stone age times. But maybe, just maybe, if you have an interest in what flies over your head you might be somewhat surprised. I live on the east end of Brittany and shitloads of A320s and 737s fly over, mostly from various places in Spain to LGW or MAN. And back. Endlessly. Count the aircraft, tot up the seats, and wonder if that many people really swap countries every single day.

        Of course, administrative bullshit like the "use it or lose it" approach to landing slots at airports only encourages planes to fly, even if empty.

        So maybe we have enough planes, the problem lies elsewhere.

        1. ChrisC Silver badge

          Re: Should we be making lots of airplanes ?

          IME, whilst you might find the odd outlier flight being operated with barely anyone one board, the days of flights routinely operating at less than at least half capacity seem to be well in the past - the last time I recall being on such a flight was back in the mid 80's, with all the flights I've taken in the past 10 years being pretty close to full, at least in the cattle and premium cattle cabins I was using.

          So also IME, it wouldn't surprise me if those flights you mention *are* carrying enough people such that it'd be difficult for the airlines to reduce their numbers by any significant level, even if rival airlines worked together to optimise the number of total seats operated on a given route each day.

          1. Lon24

            Re: Should we be making lots of airplanes ?

            The issue is -if you want to go to Spain then flying is way, way cheaper and more convenient then any other method. I looked at going by train or boat last night. I have the time but not the dertimantion, perrseverance and organisation necessary to sort it - even with the help of seat61.

            Make airlines pay the same fuel duty as cars and we would see a demand shift that would make greener alternatives more practical and desirable. Maybe we will get back the sleeper trains that wafted me from the channel ports to Switzeerland in the 1950s. Much nicer than EasyJet ... oh, how cheap flying has cheapened us!

            1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

              Re: Should we be making lots of airplanes ?

              >The issue is -if you want to go to Spain

              Why would any native son of olde England Global Britain wish to go Spain?

              I understand Skegness is Bracing

              1. Julz

                Re: Should we be making lots of airplanes ?

                Our warming planet is sorting that out...

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Should we be making lots of airplanes ?

                I'm not British and my wife is Spanish. I can drive to Spain but the cost in diesel is more than the cost of train tickets which, turn, are many times more expensive than flights for the family. That's ignoring the time taken.

                You can thank Brexit that I'm not using more flights though, I used to commute over to Britain every week.

    2. Captain Scarlet Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: Should we be making lots of airplanes ?

      All depends doesn't it, if they are replacing older planes which are not as efficent and beyond their useful life then I don't see an issue here.

      Its like someone yelling at me I am killing the planet because of my turbo diesel car (£0 tax per year :smuglook:), yet I walk more and bicycle more to the stage where it is only used once or twice a week. I compare this to many people who commented this, they buy a new car every few years and seem to think waving the "I have an eletric car" makes them better than me.

      1. SkippyBing

        Re: Should we be making lots of airplanes ?

        Airlines wouldn't be replacing old aircraft if it wasn't cost effective so you can guarantee the new ones use less fuel and are less polluting.The improvements in terms of fuel burn/seat km over the last few decades are pretty impressive. e.g.

        1998 Boeing 737-600 75mpg/seat

        2017 Boeing 737-Max 115mpg/seat

        1. bazza Silver badge

          Re: Should we be making lots of airplanes ?

          Shinkansen / TGV / any other electric high-speed train:

          1964: 0 gallons per mile per passenger

          2022: 0 gallons per mile per passenger

          Ok, I'm cheating - depends on where the electricity comes from in the first place. France, with a lot of nuclear power, can rightly claim to have exceedingly low CO2 high speed trains.

          If Airbus's explorations of hydrogen for aircraft gets anywhere, we could be saying "0 gallons per mile" for airliners too (in terms of gallons of fossil fuel burned), provided the hydrogen is responsibly sourced.

          1. SkippyBing

            Re: Should we be making lots of airplanes ?

            I mean yes that's great, but I have yet to catch a train to the USA from Europe. Which does make the decision to reduce the tax on short haul but not long haul flights seem a bit counter productive. It's the short haul you want to be discouraging.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Should we be making lots of airplanes ?

              Another advantage of trains over planes!

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Should we be making lots of airplanes ?

            You could give the "mileage" in gallon-equivalent-energy, and it would impressive compared to air travel.

    3. crayon
      Happy

      Re: Should we be making lots of airplanes ?

      Climate activists are one of the biggest source of passengers for airlines, jetting off from one conference to the next complaining about the polluting effects of aeroplane exhausts.

      1. The Oncoming Scorn Silver badge
        Holmes

        Re: Should we be making lots of airplanes ?

        & usually on private planes.

      2. VoiceOfTruth Silver badge

        Re: Should we be making lots of airplanes ?

        "How dare you!", exclaimed Greta, and travelled about 4,000 miles to say it.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Should we be making lots of airplanes ?

          Careful, your paymasters are only too happy with the work Greta is doing, convincing western nations to sacrifice their economies on the alter of climate science.

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: Should we be making lots of airplanes ?

            Greta is obviously a front for a new wave of Viking invasions.

            First you get rid of all your steam powered navies and then a bunch of carbon-neutral longboats come rowing up the Thames

        2. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

          Re: Should we be making lots of airplanes ?

          If you had actually been paying attention you would know that's not the case. I think the last (the only?) time she turned up in the US it was because she'd been offered a lift on a yacht.

  4. Potemkine! Silver badge

    I wonder if Airbus opening an assembly line for A320 in China in 2008 had any impact on the development of the C919 starting in 2009?

    == Bring us Dabbsy back! ==

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "== Bring us Dabbsy back! =="

      Bore off. He was crap, evidenced in why they sacked him off.

  5. steviebuk Silver badge

    Jesus

    "nation's aviation authorities are set to issue it an airworthiness certification"

    Expect it to fall out the sky not long after then. Hopefully, with no one onboard and the crew getting out safely.

    Xi will be telling them to sign it off no matter what.

    1. IGotOut Silver badge

      Re: Jesus

      China has one of the best aviation saftey records on the planet, but hey let's not let the facts get in the way of misinformed xenophobia.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Jesus

        I know the reg has been forced to accept American spelling but I hoped it at least used British sarcasm.

        In a story that came down to 'Chinese build a plane but it will be crap cos they aren't Americans' I didn't think it needed the icon

      2. steviebuk Silver badge

        Re: Jesus

        It's not xenophobia to point out Xi is an arsehole to his own people, other races in China and most of all the Japanese. Xi and the CCP claim xenophobia and racism when anyone outside of China questions them. No one wants to be called a racist so, in a small way, it works for them.

        The point is still valid, the CCP is notorious for stealing other tech and lying about statistics. So where are you getting the safety record figures from? Especially if they are only internal flights? Don't say the CCP because then we know they are bullshit. Its the same bullshit that "China has ended poverty". That China will be carbon neutral but 2060 (they are the biggest miners and burners of coal. Having opened even more massive coal mines).

        No doubt the wumao's will come along and downvote this more.

      3. the Jim bloke

        Re: Jesus

        China has one of the best aviation saftey records on the planet

        .. it also has one of the best Covid 19 health records on the planet.

        ..

        because 'the record' is just whats written down.

        Between the orange idiot and pooh bear each trying to score political points, real facts had a higher mortality rate than slum dwellers in Brazil or India during the Delta wave.

    2. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: Jesus

      There are only three nations that have demonstrated the capability to independently launch and then land and control a robotic vehicle on Mars. China is one of them.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Jesus

        Britain landed a vehicle on Mars.....

        1. the Jim bloke
          Alien

          Re: Jesus

          Not as many as the martians landed on Britain..

          I read it in a book..

      2. Adair Silver badge

        Re: Jesus

        Another way of saying that is:

        only three nations have:

        a. been arsed to,

        b. been driven by hubris and/or a rather pathetic political need to score points,

        'independently launch and then land and control a robotic vehicle on Mars'.

        Such achievements, while frequently wonderful on the surface, often hide some pretty shabby and pitiful behaviour and motives behind the scenes.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Jesus

        How many others have been arsed to try?

    3. bazza Silver badge

      Re: Jesus

      Well, if we're into scoring the performance of aviation safety regulators around the world, the FAA / Boeing setup is the one that has demonstrated fatal inadequacies.

      Give them their due, the Chinese aviation authority was the one to call "bollocks" on the FAA / Boeing's assurances after the 2nd MAX crash, and in the view of the rest of the world's regulators they were quite right to do so (especially after the Chinese shared what it was the Americans had said to them).

      There is a competitive advantage in having an effective regulatory body - stern but fair is a good place to be. If the Chinese have got that, they're motivated to do it properly, not improperly.

      And let's not forget airlines. When they buy aircraft, most of them don't naively take delivery and put them into service; they get their own folk to give them a thorough going over (especially if they've bought from Boeing, looking for ladders and smaller FOD in tanks, tail cones, etc). If there are problems with the aircraft, they're unlikely to be wings-falling-off or similarly gross issues. Thereafter, airlines own engineering reports and operational statistics will contribute to a post-entry-into-service verification of the certification. Airlines buying a new type from a new manufacturer are probably going to want to be all over the manufacturing of their aircraft anyway, to be sure they do actually want to part with cash on delivery.

      There is a competitive advantage for airlines doing that - in helping a new manufacturer get a new type safely established in the market, there's probably a lot of discount available forever more. So an airline with the technical engineering resources to be able to contribute in that way may very well be motivated to use those resources to get that #1 customer status.

      Lufthansa are a bit like this - they do a lot of their own engineering, because they want to be able to sell engineering services to other airlines. In fact, they pretty much bought 747-800 (the last but pointless 747) to ensure that they could provide engineering services for other -800 customers, the pity being that there are very few of those...

    4. An_Old_Dog Silver badge
      Boffin

      China Quality

      ... is a very mixed bag, and so much depends on circumstances. On one hand, life is cheap there, and there are plenty of individuals ready and willing to take safety shortcuts in exchange for increased profits. On the other hand, people dying in their airliners probably would be a major international issue of "face" to the current PRC government, so they would be motivated to crack down on any shenannigans.

      China has plenty of brains and certainly can design and build high-quality ${TECH_THING}. Whether that actually does happen or not is a separate issue.

      1. steviebuk Silver badge

        Re: China Quality

        and the problem is targets. A region will get "targets" to meet and sadly, its been drummed into the culture to just fake them. Been a video recently do the rounds showing a queue for Covid tests due to their stupid zero Covid policy. And the lady doing the tests can clearly been seen faking tests because she has to "meet targets".

        Lets hope they aren't doing the same with the plane tests.

        Its not the people of China that are the issue, it's the CCP that we all have an issue with, and Xi being as bad as Mao.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: China Quality

          > And the lady doing the tests can clearly been seen faking tests because she has to "meet targets"

          So that's where Elizabeth Holmes went

          >Lets hope they aren't doing the same with the plane tests.

          No need to fake the plane tests, just don't do them and don't tell the Feds

          >Its not the people of China that are the issue, it's the CCP that we all have an issue with,

          Fortunately in a democracy the failings are the fault of the electorate not the leaders

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Jesus

      I'm sure the Chinese Communist Party will be telling them not to fuck it up with everyone watching.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    size

    I only fly once a year, I'm a tall guy, so I notice seat size and leg room. 3 years ago my knees were wedged against the seat in front of me and my head above the headrest, this year I had like 2 inches of free space, and the head rest went up 4 inches, almost good!. Looking at the images of the C919, the seats look small for even chinese people as their head is above head rest. Will be funny to see large people trying to fit into them. https://www.alamy.com/visitors-are-pictured-in-a-full-scale-model-of-the-c919-jet-plane-of-comac-commercial-aircraft-corporation-of-china-ltd-during-an-exhibition-in-bei-image263887856.html

    1. The Oncoming Scorn Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Re: size

      How do you get home?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: size

        lol, walk. but you know what I meant.

    2. martinusher Silver badge

      Re: size

      The interiors are fitted out to suit the customer, they're not inherently part of the aircraft.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: size

        i wonder at what point a "wide body" jet needs to be made wider because of the wide bodies ?

    3. bazza Silver badge

      Re: size

      There's a huge amount of subtlety in aircraft dimensions. Airbus have been pretty successful at this - generally getting dimensions that are just right for passengers, whilst also being just right for airlines. A lot of Boeings haven't been so successful. Most 777 are now run 10 across - very cramped - instead of the designed-for 9. The 787 was meant to be 8 across, but most are now flown at 9. The 737 now feels very cramped, but an A320 which is only 7 inches wider does not. A lot of Airbuses are flown in their as-designed configuration.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: size

        So American manufacturers are able to cram more Americans across an aircraft today than when they were designed in the 1970s/1980s ?

        Presumably this is due to the modern, efficient more compact American begin produced today?

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
          Joke

          Re: size

          So, you're saying Jane Fonda's workout videos were secretly sponsored by Boeing?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: size

            Rather than Kleenex ?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: size

          they figured since they removed Ashtrays from every seat, they could plant another butt in there some please :p

  7. x 7

    Chinese Airlines Always Crash

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAAC_Airlines

  8. martinusher Silver badge

    Obviously can't work because, well, they're Chinese

    COMAC is probably the single greatest danger to the US aircraft industry but as usual we'll just ignore it and try to do what we did when Airbus got a bit too close for comfort -- make with the PR, hit up the lobbyists and generally change the rules in our favor. Its no coincidence that Boeing's management has now decamped from Chicago to Virginia. They're not in the airframe business, they're primarily lobbyists. (See what happened when Airbus planned to acquire Bombadier....)

    As for remarks about Russian planes its worth remembering that Russia is the primary source of machined titanium parts used in US airliners. Its one of those things we don't talk about, just as we don't talk about Chinese materials in the semiconductor business. (Just this week the F-35 production had to be stopped because it was discovered that -- gasp! -- there was a Chinese sourced component in the engine or something.) The Chinese can make airliners. The Russians are also very good at it, they pretty much wrote the book on composites, for example, having been using them for a lot longer than we have. We need to take these seriously because they'll produce a good product and they'll probably undercut us.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Obviously can't work because, well, they're Chinese

      The USA will simply do what they did when Bombardier made a more efficient competitor to the 737 - put a 300% import duty on it.

      1. Lordrobot

        Re: Obviously can't work because, well, they're Chinese

        Ouch but so true... As they say in Canada "Remember the Arrow!" Canada's greatest error is that it trusted the USA. In doing so, it failed to build both Atlantic and Pacific port access. Canada has essentially one global trader, the USA. Trump imposes tariffs, Trump removes tariffs and Biden reinstates tariffs. NAFTA is not a free trade agreement if the US can arbitrarily tariff Canadian trade.

        Trump focused on small things... I wonder why... A nation with 34 million people had a tariff on Dairy as if dropping the tariff would suddenly make US Dairy profitable. Tariffs harm the nation that imposes them but Canada isn't a large Dairy exporter. So while their Tariff is dumb it is negligible. But US tariffs on Canadian wood products and steel is utterly insane. Canada seems to like being bullied and never makes a fuss. They can't they have one main global trader and access to the Atlantic only by the St Lawrence seaway... unless a Canadian amongst you knows more about Canadian geography than I, which should not be too difficult.

    2. Lars Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Obviously can't work because, well, they're Chinese

      @martinusher

      "when Airbus planned to acquire Bombadier.."

      There was no such plan, it was only about the Bombardier CSeries.

      "Airbus partnership

      The stiff competition, slow business and ultimately the dumping petition by Boeing paved the way for Bombardier to close a partnership with Airbus in October 2017.[30] Bombardier CEO predicted that the partnership would significantly accelerate sales as it would bring certainty to the CSeries programme and increase the level of confidence through the Airbus's global scale, which would take the programme to new heights.

      On 16 October 2017, Airbus and Bombardier announced that Airbus would acquire a 50.01% majority stake in the CSALP partnership, with Bombardier keeping 31% and Investissement Québec 19%, to expand in an estimated market of more than 6,000 new 100- to 150-seat aircraft over 20 years."

      And eventually Bombardier sold its shares in that partnership.

      "After reassessing its participation in January 2020, Bombardier exited the A220 programme in February 2020, selling its share to Airbus for $591 million. Airbus thus owned 75% of the programme; the remaining 25% of shares were held by Investissement Québec. Under the acquisition terms Airbus acquired Bombardier's option to buy out Investissement Québec's share from 2023, with a revised option date of 2026. Airbus also agreed to acquire A220 and A330 work package production capabilities from Bombardier in Saint-Laurent, to be taken through the Airbus subsidiary, Stelia Aerospace."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220

  9. DS999 Silver badge

    Wow those are some big backlogs

    I'm sure many of those orders were deliberately placed to be delivered over time as older aircraft are retired, so the airlines making the orders won't care they are delivered 5 or 10 years out. That would be a pretty big barrier to an airline starting up or making a big expansion, having to wait years for delivery.

    Having a manufacturer that (at least at first) has much shorter backlog would get them some business. Maybe not from US airlines in the current political climate, but pretty much the whole world outside of North America and Europe (probably more due to their ties to Airbus than because of US pressure) would give them strong consideration.

    1. Justthefacts Silver badge

      Re: Wow those are some big backlogs

      I’ve never understood the aircraft backlog industry, but one thing is certain: much of it is mythical. E.g. one of the largest elements of the official backlog includes Lion Air, the Indonesian low-cost. Lion Air currently have outstanding orders for 177 Airbus and 230 Boeing (mostly MAXs). That’s 8% of the entire global jet backlog.

      Unfortunately, Lion Air has a) Been insolvent in the interim since it placed the orders starting 2011, and returned to service b) Was until recently on the safety blacklist to fly into EU c) Currently has a *total* fleet of about 150 aircraft (so that would be a huge expansion) but they are all leased - not owned outright d) Is in current talks with the actual owners of the aircraft it leases to “restructure its debt”. The owners have taken possession of the aircraft, and Lion Air is currently leasing *by the hour*! e) One CFO was imprisoned on fraud charges, the next one lasted a year before “taking it easy by the pool” (no, I have no idea what that means either).

      That’s 8% of the global official backlog for commercial jet orders. Is it credible? Clearly not. Is there a valid reason to believe that Boeing and Airbus can sell every plane as it rolls off the line? Sure. But It’s a very murky world.

      1. DS999 Silver badge

        Re: Wow those are some big backlogs

        If those orders were placed in 2011 they are probably coming up for production soon - and a "place near the front of the line" is presumably an asset.

        Maybe they placed all those orders because 1) they had high hopes of growing a lot and needing them and 2) they figured if they didn't end up needing them they'd be able to sell those orders (which they have presumably paid some sort of deposit on already) to a third party who needs planes now instead of years from now.

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Wow those are some big backlogs

      "That would be a pretty big barrier to an airline starting up"

      Start-ups and smaller airlines are more likely to lease, probably "used" aircraft. It's need to be a very well funded start-up to buy new aircraft outright.

      1. DS999 Silver badge

        Re: Wow those are some big backlogs

        That makes sense, but given these backlogs they have no option to buy new planes even if they wanted.

        Not all airlines need to be low cost carriers, surely there's a market out there for more "premium" airlines that cost more but coach class isn't cattle class so you have sufficient room, customer service is a thing, in flight meals are a thing, etc. Seems like such a airline might be more likely to want new planes for various reasons, if they had the option (and the startup capital)

        I wish such an airline existed in the US. Instead you have a choice between crappy regular airlines, and extra crappy discount carriers. Even if you get most of the above from an expensive upgrade to business/first class you still have to deal with the regular airline problems of overbooking causing flight delays, old planes causing mechanical delays, etc.

        I don't want to pay business class rates, but I'd be willing to pay say 50% more. Give us 20% more seat pitch, proper in flight meals, and good customer service (including not nickel and diming with a lot of fees for stuff that should be free like checking one bag and storing one carry on in the overhead bin) and I'd consider that 50% more well worth it.

  10. Lordrobot

    Will this change Boeing and Airbus Trajectory in the Chinese Market

    Maybe 10%. the C919 has been a very slow process, intentionally so. China wants a passenger Aircraft business to compete with Boeing, and Airbus. The C919 while a great-looking aircraft is a bit heavier, a bit slower, has less range, less fuel economy and less passenger seating. It has German Air conditioning, a spacious cockpit larger than both Boeing and Airbus, and is beautifully appointed. The LEAP engines are excellent.

    This aircraft is intended for domestic flights.

    The US Gov wanted to stop GE from selling LEAP engines. Trump actually stepped in and said National Security should not be an issue with domestic aircraft. I guess Trump didn't get that new Boeing he wanted as a gift. Meanwhile, China and other nations including India are attempting to work with Rolls Royce to develop engine service centres globally. But God Save the King, Liz Truss, everyone's jilted girlfriend, is trying to find every way possible to destroy Rolls Royce. Who is going to buy Rolls engines if they can't fix the bloody things?

    As for Russia, my speculation is that China is going to mediate an end to Ukraine. It will likely involve splitting up Eastern Ukraine and going to Russia. The war is a dreadful thing and what doesn't surprise me is that the US and UK and EU have done nothing at all to negotiate peace. They are leaving the door open for China to be a peacemaker. Europe wants Russian energy and Russia and China want to displace the US global dollar influences. Europe will go along with this and the US and sadly my beloved Britain will become more and more irrelevant with each passing day.

    This aircraft is an astonishing achievement for China's first commercial aircraft.

    1. bazza Silver badge

      Re: Will this change Boeing and Airbus Trajectory in the Chinese Market

      Pretty sure that, if there is any negotiation for peace to be done, it's the Ukrainians who will do it, not the US/EU/UK or anyone else. It's Ukraine's territory afterall.

  11. bernmeister

    Chinese Copy

    The Chinese domestic market for this type of aicraft is huge. Internal flights are a big market and once the negative impact of Covid restrictions clear things will boom. The domestic replacement market alone should be able to support the build of this aircraft.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like