In a huge leap of naming they’ve named it the C929 with initial flights in 2025 and EIS planned for 2027. It’s cool to think they probably won’t hit those dates but pretending like a roadmap doesn’t even exist is not.
Also also, even if China does pull off the airframe, they'll still rely on Western jets to power it. China's first modern turbofan, the CJ-1000A, is not scheduled to go into service until 2030 (!) and even that is geared only for the C919: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACAE_CJ-1000A
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure China will get there sooner or later, as they've already demonstrated with high-speed trains and many other things. But timeframes for going from concept to a serious competitor in this business are measured in decades.
If you think of Airbus as a multi-national consortium (as it rightly is: French, British, etc.) then a Chinese/Russian hook-up is not totally daft. You could make the same argument about "a great recipe to delay everything even further" about Airbus versus Boeing and yet Airbus appears to be doing okay.
Don't we think competition is good? What happened to cheering on free markets? Why exactly do we want a Western duopoly to continue to exist in perpetuity? If Western countries believed their own rhetoric they'd be helping Russia and China to compete on the world stage – it would be a win for the entire globe.
You make it sound like 2030 is a lifetime away. It's only 10 years. It's been less than a century since the last huge global conflict and it looks like China and Russia will be toe-to-toe with the West (ignoring that Russia is already largely Western) in commercial aviation, space-flight, nuclear power, possibly semiconductor production, you name it.
The West does not have some God-given or divine-right to remain on top of the heap – China (and India) are going to eventually catch up, it's just a matter of time, the only thing up for debate in my mind is whether it's sooner rather than later, and I believe in China's case it's going to be upon us sooner than we expect.
And FWIW, if you read up on Airbus's history, you'll see that their unusual structure and resulting internal politics have caused a lot of pain over the years (eg. the A380 superjumbo program). Ironically enough, Boeing got a taste of this too when they decided to outsource all the things when building the 787, which consequently went way over budget.
Here's a recent doc about the most technologically advanced aircraft they've manufactured, the A350: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yutzg2NLwcU “Giant Aircraft: Manufacturing an Airbus A350 | Mega Manufacturing | Free Documentary”
No? Not really? Obviously competitions is good when it drives innovation, which is beneficial for domestic industry as a whole. Competition is not good for competition's sake. It's not good competition when Western players fall behind. This isn't some kind of hypocritical failing of free-market doctrines. You either don't understand what it intended to accomplish, or are deliberately misrepresenting it. I suspect the latter.
> Why exactly do we want a Western duopoly to continue to exist in perpetuity?
... Why wouldn't we want our own players to dominate the industry? I don't think any kind of monopoly/duopoly is a good thing, but I don't really think that's your point. Your use of the word 'Western' betrays your intent here.
> If Western countries believed their own rhetoric they'd be helping Russia and China to compete on the world stage – it would be a win for the entire globe.
Um... no? China's exports becoming more competitive would not be a win for the entire globe, it would be quite the opposite.
> The West does not have some God-given or divine-right to remain on top of the heap...
Of course not, God didn't put us on top of the heap either.
> China (and India) are going to eventually catch up, it's just a matter of time, the only thing up for debate in my mind is whether it's sooner rather than later, and I believe in China's case it's going to be upon us sooner than we expect.
I wouldn't hold your breath.
Also let’s be clear if the C919 actually works out they will be a serious competitor. The market for wide body aircraft is the one that captures all the imagination and attention but the narrow body sales are the bread and butter. They absolutely do not need to succeed in this market right away to put a big dent in the duopoly.
That's a pretty large if. Head west a bit to Russia and see how they're doing in the international market. The Sukhoi SuperJet is, by most accounts, a great plane. Sukhoi managed to sell to the Mexicans (Interjet) and Irish (CityJet) and both got rid of them quickly. Being a threat to Boeing/Embraer and Airbus/Bombardier goes well beyond the complex task of building an airliner.
Sukhoi and Comac are still hugely dependent on the west to build these planes. Avionics and engines especially. The metallurgy required to build a modern turbofan engine is incredibly exotic — outside of France, England, and the US it's simply not there. The Superjet didn't fare well -- the Russians collaborated with Safran and the result was a unreliable engine that was hard to find replacement parts for. The Russians are also currently peddling the PD-14 that competes with the 20+ year old CFM56. Comac skipped that step and went straight to GE.
Comac abandoned carbon fiber for the wings in favor of aluminum. While the C919 wings are built in China, I believe they're a European design (Comac's previous stillborn attempt at an airliner used Ukraine's Antonov for the wings).
They absolutely do not need to succeed in this market right away to put a big dent in the duopoly.
Sure they do. Network effects are huge with airliners. If your Embraer breaks down away from your maintenance base chances are you can buy / borrow parts from another airline. If you're the only one around flying, you're entirely reliant on the manufacturer — and Comac doesn't have any sort of international support network.
Bombardier and Embraer both developed competitors to the 737 on the small side, both nearly went bankrupt, and both were eventually acquired. Unfortunately when you're a widget salesman like McNerney everything looks like a damn commodity. While McNerney's actions set Boeing back quite a bit, Comac is a far smaller threat than he thought. If Boeing can deliver on a MAX replacement it's doubtful that Comac will move the needle much in the next 10-15 years.
Nitpick: in Bombardier's case at least, these were separate events. The acquisition wasn't to deal with bankruptcy (they got a Canadian government bailout for that), but rather to gain access to Airbus's US manufacturing facilities to avoid import tariffs on US deliveries, which became necessary following a Boeing anti-dumping complaint that would have made the C-Series prohibitively expensive to US carriers.
My recollection is that Bombardier made (rejected) overtures in Boeing's direction before the trade spat. In either case BBD has gotten out of the commercial aircraft business completely, in large part due to the cost of developing the C-series.
Boeing and Airbus don’t build their own engines. I don’t expect COMAC to try that in their first rodeo.
The metallurgy required to build a modern turbofan engine is incredibly exotic — outside of France, England, and the US it's simply not there.
If you’re betting on metallurgy to be the barrier to keep western technological advantage alive I think you’re in for a surprise.
Comac abandoned carbon fiber for the wings in favor of aluminum.
So they have gone back to using the material used to build every other narrow body plane on the market in this size category. I admit, a new design should use carbon fiber, but given that no one else is yet...
Sure they do. Network effects are huge with airliners. If your Embraer breaks down away from your maintenance base chances are you can buy / borrow parts from another airline. If you're the only one around flying, you're entirely reliant on the manufacturer — and Comac doesn't have any sort of international support network.
First off, airlines have purchased a ton of E175 family aircraft.
Second off, while a large international distribution is important, you don’t need to compete in the wide body market to get it.
Third off, COMAC can focus on the Chinese market to start and take it region at a time slowly expanding across Asia. From there South Asia and SEA is easy and both are big markets, Russia would welcome it with open arms and then they can take a whack at the middle eastern market and also be competitive anywhere Airbus and Boeing aren’t really playing that hard anyway. (Africa, etc.) All this well before getting around to Europe or North America.
If Boeing can deliver on a MAX replacement it's doubtful that Comac will move the needle much in the next 10-15 years.
Let’s see Boeing deliver the MAX again first.
I think it would be easy to win a bet that COMAC delivers C919 to commercial airline customers before Boeing delivers a new narrow body design to replace the 737 family.
They're all (C-Series/A220, C919, 737, A320) roughly the same size, but the C919 is antiquated and struggles to compete with the NG and CEO. Meanwhile the C-Series sets the benchmark. Even so, the C-Series was extraordinarily difficult to sell until Airbus stepped in. Comac, with dramatically less experience than Bombardier, will have an even more difficult time trying to unload the C919 (outside of China).
The C919 is specced out at 168 people in a one class layout with an overall length of 38.9 meters, the CS300 seats 160 with an overall length of 38.7 meteres. That puts both between the 737-700 and 737-800 (or A319 and A320) in capacity. Range-wise the CS300 and CEO do well over 6,000 km. The C919? Even with current generation turbofans it can only do 4,000-5,500 km. The NG slots in between (but closer to the C919).
The C919 is at least a generation behind the C-Series and NEO and is not a threat to either Boeing or Airbus. Hell, Comac doesn't even have a western cockpit for the C919 where Bombardier was toying with a stretch of the C-Series.
It's worked out well for the past 70 or so years. Industrial espionage can only go so far, that's more or less why the Russians dominate the rocket market.
So they have gone back to using the material used to build every other narrow body plane on the market in this size category. I admit, a new design should use carbon fiber, but given that no one else is yet...
The MC21 and C-series use carbon fiber wings and the MC21 also uses a CF wing box. Comac is targeting planes from 20-30 years ago. Even if it were perfectly reliable, it's nowhere near competitive with what's on the market now. If that extra few percent of fuel burn weren't important there'd be no market for the NEO or MAX.
First off, airlines have purchased a ton of E175 family aircraft.
That's the entire point. Without that scale support becomes that much more difficult and expensive.
Third off, COMAC can focus on the Chinese market to start and take it region at a time slowly expanding across Asia.
Yeah they've tried. The ARJ went over like a lead balloon. The domestic airlines haven't warmed up to Comac, and it's highly unlikely the C919 will move the needle much.
From there South Asia and SEA is easy and both are big markets
With a strong anti-Chinese sentiment (Malaysia, Vietnam). Perhaps more importantly SEA sees a lot of short-range widebody service which the C919 doesn't help with.
Russia would welcome it with open arms
Russia would welcome a direct competitor to its homegrown offerings? That seems unlikely for the C919 and unlikely even if we're talking about a hypothetical plane built in a Sino-Russian joint venture. Although why would they partner? Russian avionics aren't going to be accepted internationally, Russian engines are woefully inefficient. Comac struggled with the Ukranian wings on the ARJ. Maybe a carbon fuselage, but are the Russians anywhere near being able to do that?
and then they can take a whack at the middle eastern market
The shrinking middle east market? Emirates/flyDubai (who's got both Airbus and Boeing wrapped around their fingers is scaling back their growth (to put it delicately).
and also be competitive anywhere Airbus and Boeing aren’t really playing that hard anyway. (Africa, etc.)
How welcoming will Africa be as they slowly come to terms with how screwed they are by the Belt & Road initiative? Sure, maybe CCP applies pressure to make sales. That's not going to translate to any sort of European or American success though.
Let’s see Boeing deliver the MAX again first.
I suspect that's not going to happen.
I think it would be easy to win a bet that COMAC delivers C919 to commercial airline customers before Boeing delivers a new narrow body design to replace the 737 family.
Boeing began working on a 737 replacement before the MAX program was begun, meanwhile Comac pushed the EIS target for the C919 back to 2022. As Aviation Week pointed out last year the C919 needs about 33 hours per month of flight testing for a 2021 EIS, in practice they're seeing about 5 hours per month. So, maybe.
The bigger issues I expect for the C919 will be fuel-efficiency, and trust that it is a safe plane. The fact that they're building it from scratch when the main competitors are using refreshed old designs of the 737 and A320 might help it achieve competitive fuel-efficiency, but it remains to be seen. Safety trust will be hard to make up, but a possible pathway would be to have Chinese airliners and cargo companies use it first to establish a track record free of major accidents before getting sales to international airliners.
I wasn't aware that China had built much of a reputation for international customer support.
The fact that they're building it from scratch when the main competitors are using refreshed old designs of the 737 and A320 might help it achieve competitive fuel-efficiency, but it remains to be seen
There's not much to see. The C-series is the one to beat and so far the assuredly optimistic, published specs (per Wikipedia) for the C919 don't come close to the CS300.
Let’s also remember there’s a government entirely willing to subsidize the growth of a native product. Russia already has an 80 year history of taking wildly diverse and frankly oddball aircraft designs and turning them into things that actually fly. Anyone who thinks that them partnering with a Chinese company can’t build a widebody isn’t paying attention. Who knows if it’ll be any good, it may not be competitive. But will they be able to make something that flies?
I’d happily bet on it.
Well that's changing the goalposts just a bit. It's likely that the Chinese can churn out a widebody, but Comac couldn't even pull off a warmed over DC-9. They've got less experience than any of the Russian companies and it's pretty much a given at this point that they won't be successful.