China to take on Boeing, Airbus with new passenger jet | Hacker News Reader

China to take on Boeing, Airbus with new passenger jet

edition.cnn.com

43 pointsjinst8gmi63 comments

"The lack of certification from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is seen as a major hindrance for international sales."

no kidding.

China's current reputation (fast and default to crappy quality without extreme oversight) doesn't really fit what I'd want out of an airliner. Optimistically, this project succeeds and changes a bit of the culture around quality and shortcuts in manufacturing. If "Made in China" could gain some equivalence to "Made in Germany" without exploding their cost structure. That'd be an interesting world.

Well "Made in Germany" brand took on a hammering, the only other country manufacturing planes en masse is Russia, but their plane safety record speaks for itself.

It will be a steep hill for China to climb, the question really is how much technology and knowhow was "appropriated"

Cheap toys and phones is one thing, planes are another

Brasil is another country that makes commercial planes. They (and Canada) are much bigger internationally then Russia. And they are pretty successful with Embraer even though they did not have any prior reputation.

There are two major aerospace companies, neither of which is German. Boeing is from the US and Airbus is from France.

Civilian aircraft production in Russia is practically non-existent.

Airbus is based in France, but it's actually an European consortium, with manufacturing facilities across the continent (and in China).

China just bought 130 Airbus from Germany: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34665546

"Airbus has headquarters in Germany and France."

The irony is that VWs are actually made in Mexico.

Depends. China have a lot of quality production. But they are producing cheap and crappy because that is what the world buys. They have the means to produce at whatever part of the price/quality curve you want.

Not to speak of the aircraft technology / engineering work they're buying from European suppliers. One of my colleagues in France works mainly for Chinese manufacturers.

According to this:

* http://aviationweek.com/awin/c919-may-be-largely-limited-chi...

... that is a bit misleading. The C919 is not pursuing FAA certification directly. Instead an attempt is being made to have the Chinese certification be recognized by the FAA. The article points out that in 2013 that process was not going well.

Also from the article:

>There is no suggestion the CAAC would be soft on Comac; on the contrary, it is repeatedly reported that the Chinese authority is tougher than the FAA.

So chances are that there are no serious gotchas here and that this will all come down to paperwork.

> Instead an attempt is being made to have the Chinese certification be recognized by the FAA.

That has about as much chance of happening as a Chinese plane has of getting FAA certification.

Politics are wound up as tightly in this as a tapeworm.

> it is repeatedly reported that the Chinese authority is tougher than the FAA.

Except their government and regulatory structures are much, much more corrupt than their Western counterparts. Sure, they'll produce a document that'll say its safe but whats in the air is a totally different story. The same way lead-free products from China are full of lead. Everyone I know who resells from alibaba does lead testing on their own for every bulk shipment to avoid this. The problem is that bad. Then you have poison in baby formula, USB chargers that catch fire, and the slew of other concerning things that come out of China regularly.

So yeah, maybe the FAA should be a little skeptical of a certification from a corrupt one-party state eager to make its mark on the world as being competitive with the West and taking every shortcut to get there.

The line about lacking an FAA certification is odd. This aircraft couldn't possibly have an FAA certification yet, it hasn't even had its first test flight.

They have a basic certification from the Civil Aviation Authority of China (CAAC) which will allow them to conduct test flights and similar.

They are partnering with Ryanair (mostly inter-europe flights) and even Airbus expects them to compete outside of China by 2020.

As to quality question: China produces both high AND low quality even if they're "known" for low quality. For example that iPhone in your pocket: China. Many chip fabricators: China. High end batteries: China. Etc. If china needs high quality, they will attain it.

There's no specific reason, aside from time, why China cannot be a legitimate competitor for international aircraft.

>There's no specific reason, aside from time, why China cannot be a legitimate competitor for international aircraft.

Though this has no bearing on a Chinese firm's ability to bring a product to market, I can think of many moral and ethical arguments that could undermine the 'legitimacy' of Chinese jets (provided they're constructed with typical Chinese labor practices). Functional or not, the product is tainted.

Fabricators of chips you are familiar with: Taiwan. Most of the Chinese fabless SoC companies (Allwinner, Rockchip etc.) aren't getting their chips fabbed by Chinese owned fabs. Most of those cheap chinese phones have Mediatek SoCs, from Taiwan.

As far as I know they are not genuinely partnering with Ryanair. That was a clever negotiating tactic from CEO Michael O'Leary to squeeze more concessions from Boeing. He has always been a tough negotiator with them. Ryanair has a business model based on only keeping one type of jet. There is no way they would put all their eggs in a Chinese made aerial basket at this point.

I know their planes are a tiny bit smaller but has anyone not heard of Embraer planes?

They've sold over a thousand of these jets but CNN don't think they are worth mentioning?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_family#E-190_and...

My OCD now wants an aircraft manufacturer starting with a D.

Airbus-Boeing-Comac-D????-Embraer.

Who wants the D?

There was a time when Douglas aircraft were king (DC-series), prior to merger with McDonnell in the late 60s, then Boeing more recently.

Only really Dassault left to fill that sequence and they don't compete directly in that market any more ( though their Mercure fuselage lives on in the A320 series. Marcel Bloch wanted something wider than the 737 for marketing purposes ).

The "D"s appear to be cursed; de Havilland Canada, Dornier and ( McDonnell )-Douglas have all disappeared since 2000.

Too bad Douglas was swallowed.

Dumbardier

Bombardier is currently being bailed out by the Quebec government to the tune of $1bn, so that's another (almost) D company that's not doing so great:

http://business.financialpost.com/investing/trading-desk/bom...

Fokker is pretty much dead too.

DASA

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

I end up on EMB-145 or 175s frequently, going through mid-sized airports a lot. I love them.

- Boarding the whole plane takes ~10 minutes, compared to an interminable 30-40 minutes of waiting in line for a 737.

- 2-2 or 1-2 seat configurations means you don't have to crawl over 2 people to use the restroom

- Deboarding is just as fast as boarding, so I don't miss connections

- No gate available? No problem! Get off on the tarmac and walk a couple feet, it won't kill you.

I can only hope more airlines move towards small planes over medium-haul distances, with fewer connections.

The founder and former CEO of JetBlue happens to also own Azul in Brazil so if you happen to be in the country and fly with them chances are nearly at 100% that will be inside an Embraer (which is also a Brazilian company, that's why). Embraers are the most quiet and comfortable passengers aircrafts I've ever seen, I have no idea why other major companies won't operate with them given they cost -- what? -- 50% of a Boeing/Airbus?

They're nice, but they're small. Since many operational costs (gates, pilots, infrastructure) don't change with plane size, and because many airports are already flight-limited, it usually makes sense to use larger airplanes.

A whole bunch of things don't scale down as the overall size of the plane does, so operating a smaller Embraer isn't a a casual decision even before you get into the limited number of gates available in desirable airports.

They are very, very nice based on two flights I took on a couple of them a decade ago, much nicer than turboprops. They seem to have achieved a good niche, a quick look with Wikipedia suggests the company is healthy and that their passenger jets have a very good safety record.

The range of Embraer's fleet sets them much more in line with regional airlines. Embraer's jets don't have the range (and don't want) to compete with the Boeing/Airbus models the C919 hopes to challenge.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/709422/another-woman-killed-in-...

China can't even make an escalator or elevator safe. I'm ethnically chinese, but I wouldn't set a foot on a chinese plane.

I did a little bit research and found the escalator is from Otis. Of course there are management and maintenance issues, but it is not related to the product quality Chinese-branded plane.

And if you are buying cheap product or using a cheap service, don't expect it to be the same quality as the expensive counter parts.

Interesting, and I hope their aviation industry can do well at home before it decides to go international. Sometimes things crash during R&D. Admitting failure isn't something I've come to expect from China's authorities and media, personally speaking.

Unfortunately for China, the problem in the world and coming years isn't a lack of aviation manufacturers, it's a lack of aviators[0]!

I've got several commercial airline professionals in my family (all retired) and each of them is glad to be out of the industry - especially the pilots. Working conditions went downhill. Frequent airline executive decisions (bankruptcies / mergers) found ways to, essentially, erase agreed-upon pensions or seniority. On and on.

Basically my understanding is that the profession of being a pilot is about on-par with that of being a teacher: Do it because you love it, not because the pay or working conditions are really that good. I'm not sure if it's the same globally, but if the US isn't producing a surplus of pilots to staff the rest of the world, I've got significant doubts that needs will be met with qualified personnel. As in, you don't want a pilot who cheated to get into the cockpit.

[0] http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-09/asia-is-run...

People think they will compete with Boeing and Airbus internationally but they are not, at least not initially. They mainly aim at China's domestic market which has long term high growth as more people becoming wealthier and use air flight as a mode of transportation. Some estimate that the demand for new planes goes into thousands in the near future. It's better to develop and buy from a domestic manufacturer than sending the money oversea. In some sense they are competing with Boeing and Airbus for the China's and the other emerging markets.

I read a component checklist for C919 yesterday and it seems other than the main body, most if not all the internal pieces(including the engines) are outsourced elsewhere.

Boeing probably does something similar, in that it acts like more of a system designer and integrator, I recall its major software was also outsourced to some India company for its newest model.

Anyone else wonder if much of their R&D and design on this is coming from international espionage? Chinese exfiltration of sensitive industrial data is becoming pretty well known.

That would probably make me feel better about getting on one of these.

I don't know about that....

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

That story is probably untrue, but the potential for similar things has to be there.

Hum, what decade are you living in? Espionage? They just contract international suppliers, designers and engineering R&D firms, exactly the same as Airbus or Boeing do. I know that many suppliers in France work for Chinese aircraft manufacturers. It's not like we are at war or something. As other user commented, if you look at the BOM of this plane you will see that a lot of components are internationally outsourced.

Boeing and Airbus are known for quality AND reliability. Those two terms are derived from hard data just as much as from public perception. As other's here have said...China will face an uphill battle.

What are the C919's selling point versus the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320?

"Keeping those western imperialists out of our country!"

Heh, I meant from a technical perspective :)

"Keeping those western imperialist technologies out of our country!"

20% more lead in the construction offset by the decreased weight of no safety equipment.

Actually it was advertised to have better fuel economy than some variants of the 737, but it doesn't really appear to be much of an improvement. Just China's answer to the 737 and A320 as far as I can see.

They're trying to be the "Kia of aircraft" meaning they offer a lot of value for a relatively low price. They're primarily targeting budget airlines.

It is a little speculatory but supposedly their average aircraft will cost $68 million Vs. $71.9m or $78.3m for a A320 and 737 respectively. So they will be the cheapest in that line, and are trying to match or better the other two in fuel economy, supposedly 15% more fuel efficient than the A320 [0] (but the A320neo is meant to be more comparable).

That being said few analysts think that Comac's first attempt at commercial success will be successful. They have a lot of obstacles to overcome. However assuming the money doesn't dry up their second or third aircraft might be fairly competitive.

So watch this space for the mid to late 2020s, might see Comac on the tarmac somewhere nearby.

[0] http://leehamnews.com/2012/01/05/c919-gains-but-loses-advant...

$4 million cheaper, on a $68 million price tag? Is that a typo?

No. $4 million is a lot of money. Now imagine that you're buying 100 of them.

It's less than a 6% discount for something new and untested. Saving money it is not.

It's an insignificant amount of money for an airline because (i) anyone buying 100 of them negotiates deep discounts from the manufacturer anyway, with Airbus and Boeing probably having more scope to offer them (ii) they borrow the money to buy the aircraft, and cost of finance on an aircraft of unknown provenance will be higher [unless a very favourable export credit arrangement underwritten by the Chinese govt] (iii) capital costs of acquiring an aircraft are a fraction of the cost of ownership, and there's a lot more uncertainty about the cost of operations and maintenance on these, as well as whether there will be an liquidity in the aftermarket when the airline wants to move them on.

Then I'm still only saving a few percent on the large amount of money I'm spending.

And in return I not only have to deal with the risk of buying a hundred aircraft designed and built by people who were pushing plows a couple of years ago based on some photocopies smuggled out of Toulouse, I also have to have the airline that people say "Oh hell no I'm not flying on that".

How does that compare to the Bombardier C-Series?

It'll probably fly before Bombardier ships the damn C-Series

jfb, staring at the ancient TTC streetcards in wroth.

Obviously price. And it's a first, Airbus didn't sell that many A-300 in the first years. Only with the A-320 did they have a winner and subsequently developed a whole family of jets.

China isn't just looking at the next couple of business quarters, they want to get a foothold in the commercial jet market in the next decades.

http://english.comac.cc/products/ca/pi/

"Chinese Characteristics. We should set our footing on the practical situations in China, leverage on the whole nation's strengths andwisdem, and bring into full play the political superiority of the socialist system which is capable of concentrating all of its resources in achieving great things."

Yeah, that's a sales pitch that will resonate with the rest of the world...

</sarcasm>

Reminds me of the nascent Frigate Ecojet project. An ex-colleague met some of the team behind it and described them as keen to shake off the image of it being a solely Russian venture.

This is their website: http://www.frigate-ecojet.ru/

3 years of test flights. Am I the only one that finds this a long time to test an aircraft?

Planes have pretty disastrous failure modes, and useful lifespans in the decades. An accelerated test cycle seems... unwise.

Not for a passenger jet.

How much time do you spend testing some mildly complex web app, by the time you're done with it? You're probably testing a ton as you go along, but a lot of stuff in an airplane can't be tested until the whole thing is assembled.

Then consider that even a smallish airliner is about a thousand times more complex than your web app. The software running on just one of the many computers alone is vastly more complex than your web app, not to mention the huge quantity of complex and often custom-designed mechanical equipment and such, plus the intersections of all these various pieces.

Then add in the fact that bugs that get through testing in your web app probably mean you have to fix it and redeploy, while bugs that get through aircraft testing result in dead passengers.

Three years seems pretty reasonable to me.

So this is a competitor to the 737 and A320. Seems like a pretty crowded market.

Not to mention that both 737 and A320 are fully depreciated, highly optimized cash cows. It takes decades for a plane to reach that stage, and both Boeing & Airbus can mass produce them with their eyes closed.

As with many other "value added" Chinese products, it might make inroads in "friendly markets" such as Asia and Africa, but will have a very hard time competing in the huge European and American (as in the continents) markets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com