[Simhi]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

Africa World Airlines of Ghana about to order two ARJ21 aircraft.

Related news article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...vance-overseas

[phamilyman]

Originally Posted by NiXTriX2004

Having worked In China and on the C919 project in the past, I can assure you that this aircraft will see the light of day. They are burning a lot of money and resources to get it right. This is supposedly the pet project of the Chinese premier Xi Jinping. The Chinese airlines will be forced to buy it and also the countries across Africa and Asia who owe them.
It is based on existing Boeing and Airbus designs, acquired by either hook or crook. Do not underestimate the ruthlessness of the Chinese. All the vendors enlisted for the project are well-known names in the Aviation industry. The technical know-how is not there yet but that shortfall is being bridged by hiring expats for the short term.

This is exactly why I will not fly it yet unless absolutely unavoidable. Till its first safety incident and the next iteration. Sorry if I sound macabre, but hear me out - Safety is an outcome of a design that has been tested to the extremes, and an airline culture of safety! Neither can be built overnight by throwing capital at it - mere copy pasting things together works for documents, not aircraft. Someone somewhere will take shortcuts the way Boeing invented MCAS and brushed it under the carpet.


The thing with such extremely engineered complex platforms is that the longer they've been around, the more you trust them, like Taleb outlined in the Lindy effect:

For the perishable, every additional day in its life translates into a shorter additional life expectancy. For the nonperishable like technology, every additional day may imply a longer life expectancy.

So the longer a technology lives, the longer it can be expected to live.

Of course, that is unless someone can share first hand info about safety obsession of COMAC at par with the manufacturing process excellence you see in a Maruti, for instance. Or the personal obsession of a Musk like CEO:
https://www.teslarati.com/elon-musk-...-3-production/

“Elon is the type of CEO that is actually hands-on in the factory floor. He’s not one of those that sits on the ivory tower and just gets reports. He’s actually on the line, seeing the issues himself in person, and seeing what contributions people are making, and what the issues are. He doesn’t like to hear things second-hand. He likes everything first-hand knowledge.
“So this issue had caused some delays with the production, so of course it was one thing that was always on his radar, and once we had figured it out and got it up and running reliably, he came by, and he had us walk through it. It’s probably one of the most unnerving experiences ever, because he’s the CEO of the company and here we are, just two interns. And, he’s basically like ‘Yep, you’ve got to stay.’”

Today's day and age, we are in the realm of the unknown, where systems are signed off with extremely complex mathematics and the airframes operate within extreme limits, as the 737MAX incident shows. Further, introduction will always be hurried under various pretenses, as Boeing did on the 737 - oh its "just like the old version". As soon as ET302 crashed, friends in the US rebooked their flights sadly putting the "If its a Max, I'm not a pax" quote into action.

On top of it, airlines cannot be trusted and aviation regulators cannot be trusted to fully audit these things in the quick timelines for launch. The hardest to test are the edge cases!
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/b...es-charge.html



On top of it, airline cultures are suspect-
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...w/68504736.cms

Authorities investigating the Indonesia crash say erroneous sensor data triggered an automated anti-stall feature, known as the MCAS, in the new Max planes that pushed its nose down, ultimately crashing the plane into the Java Sea. In the case of the day-earlier Lion Air flight, the guest pilot was able to disable the system in time.

IF ONLY the pilot from the previous day sent out a company wide whatsapp saying "Friends, MCAS on this plane got triggered today. Whoever is the driver tomorrow, just take care, brothers! Make sure you have the MCAS page bookmarked in your QRH" - 189 people would've been alive today!!!


Aditya Ghosh had really created a world class culture where ANYONE could whatsapp him an incident or an improvement suggestion, and all issues were discussed openly. I have verified this personally from over 10 lead attendants as part of a long planned LinkedIn blog. Now? New management is leading to bad scheduling decisions and pilot discontent (paywall)

https://prime.economictimes.indiatim...ther-the-storm
Now, pilots need to pay for their official offsite and have their leaves deducted as well! Wow. If this is where Indigo is today, why would I trust a random carrier somewhere else in the world?

[the_skyliner]

Originally Posted by Enobarbus

For example, GKN Aerospace, which is a major supplier of advanced structures to Airbus, is now indirectly owned by China.

That is not true. GKN is owned by UK investment firm and is pretty much still a British company.

[libranof1987]

Comac probably has some time until it can truly take away the pie from the duo.

As Boeing struggles with the 737 Max crisis, its big rival Airbus has announced a huge order from China.

The European plane maker said Monday that it has reached a deal to sell 300 passenger jets to Chinese airlines. The agreement was signed during Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to France.

The order covers 290 planes from the A320 family and 10 from the A350 line, Airbus (EADSF) said in a statement, calling it a sign of strong demand from all areas of China's rapidly expanding aviation market, including "domestic, low cost, regional and international long haul."

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/26/b...ing/index.html

[the_skyliner]

Originally Posted by libranof1987

Comac probably has some time until it can truly take away the pie from the duo.



https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/26/b...ing/index.html

Thanks for sharing the info.

I think there are two main reasons for such a deal:

1. President Xi had to return the favour to Airbus for setting up FAL (latest being delivery and completion centre for A330) in China.

2. China can not rely or bank on Comac for a foreseeable future to meet its demand in any possible way.

[samarth.bhatia]

Fantastic topic!
China has certainly come a long, long way in terms of not just meeting, but beating expectations on what they can do in terms of high quality, high precision manufacturing.

The story of Korea was very similar too, with Samsung, Hyundai and Kia being ridiculed not too many years ago for being copy cats, and now being seen as quality products.

Undoubtedly, the aircraft industry is different.
So curious (and perhaps a bit worried) to see how China fares on this.

Originally Posted by Malyaj

Aircraft development costs run into billions, and are the opposite of sunk costs. There will always be temptation to, even when the writing is on the wall, to want to go just a little further, simply because ‘we have come so far’.

Just curious - why the opposite of sunk costs?

Sam

[the_skyliner]

Big news for COMAC and Chinese aerospace industry as EU & China aviation regulators sign a deal:

https://chinaeconomicreview.com/chin...homemade-c919/

This paves way for EASA certification for C919.

[pganapathy]

There is no doubt that COMAC will eventually compete with Boeing and Airbus. However, one needs to understand the time frame involved. Unlike say cars or electronics, the average useful life of a plane is way over 20 years. Which means replacing planes currently in service is not a short term goal. And China is not a country that is pouring in money expecting immediate returns. Unlike India, most of their businesses take a very long term approach indeed. I am not sure if we will fly in a globally competitive Chinese airliner before most of us retire, but our kids surely will

[the_skyliner]

Originally Posted by pganapathy

There is no doubt that COMAC will eventually compete with Boeing and Airbus. However, one needs to understand the time frame involved. Unlike say cars or electronics, the average useful life of a plane is way over 20 years. I am not sure if we will fly in a globally competitive Chinese airliner before most of us retire, but our kids surely will

35000+ new aircrafts will be required in next 20 years with one quarter of that going to China alone. There is good a chance of C919 sharing some of the sales number after EASA and/or FAA certification.

[pganapathy]

Originally Posted by the_skyliner

35000+ new aircrafts will be required in next 20 years with one quarter of that going to China alone. There is good a chance of C919 sharing some of the sales number after EASA and/or FAA certification.

I agree that the planes will be sold, and some of us will fly in them. Whether they will be globally competitive now is another question. The Russian planes (Ilyushin's/Anotonov's etc.) were decent but not great. I have flown in some of them in Mozambique and thanks to bad servicing had a reputation as flying coffins. Whether that is due to bad service or badly designed planes in the first place is debatable.

But at the end of the day, the Chinese planes will compete against Airbus and Boeing for sure. Just when, not if

[.sushilkumar]

While it was a open secret how Chinese build this comac in such short span, Below article explains it succinctly . Seems like CFM is compromised a lot and Chinese had a field day learning from them.

Building China's Comac C919 airplane involved a lot of hacking, report says

Here is the full report

https://www.crowdstrike.com/resource...nce-report.pdf

The group, which Crowdstrike said it tracked as Turbine Panda, was extremely successful. The US cyber-security firm points out that in 2016, after almost six years of non-stop hacking of foreign aviation companies, the Aero Engine Corporation of China (AECC) launched the CJ-1000AX engine, which was set to be used in the upcoming C919 airplane, and replace an engine that had been previously manufactured by a foreign contractor.

Industry reporting points out that the CJ-1000AX displays multiple similarities [1, 2] to the LEAP-1C and LEAP-X engines produced by CFM International, a joint venture between US-based GE Aviation and French aerospace firm Safran, and the foreign contractor that supplied turbine engines for the C919.