I would disagree with that idea that Boeing has a negative record. It's mostly only for the MAX series of plane, and it's still super safe overall.
As-in, they've fallen far below the current accepted standard of Airbus, but it's still miles ahead better than "no safety record".
> Especially if they have passed all check by external state backed regulators.
This is exactly what the Boeing planes are in Europe, FAA certify them so they're grandfathered, so this means nothing. I wouldn't trust Chinese regulator certification.
At this point, my trust is in the EASA regulators, for plane they certified themselves (aka, non Boeing), and I really wish we would untie their hand to let them certify Boeing plane from scratch.
And Boeing would benefit from it too. And Airbus, because Airbus got so good because they needed to catch up and beat Boeing, the chauvinist french in me is glad Airbus is beating them, the realist in me knows the one that's one top always end up feeling to safe and slipping.
Let's say we measure based on fatalities per km flown/passenger.
Now, the Superjet has had some fatal accidents so I'd bet it'd score worse than any prod Boeing. If the Comac had a single accident, if would score just as bad. But you'd be basing it on a low sample size, so one could still claim it's a freak accident.
with Comac coming soon
In a two class layout it's got fewer seats than a MAX 7 and the extended range version's got less range than a MAX 10. Even if COMAC managed to build a bunch of them, they're not competitive with current generation airliners. The C919 is least a generation behind and COMAC has basically no logistics infrastructure. They've a long way to go before being competitive outside of the captive domestic market.