Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Russia/China To Join Building 275~350-seater Plane  
User currently offlineJimyvr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10079 times:

From my daily newsletter mail of "RusAviaNews", received on 03NOV06....

RUSSIA AND CHINA TO JOIN EFFORTS IN BUILDING AIRCRAFT


Quote:
/VZGLYAD- (vision)/
Above all, the point is to start efforts for designing a big airplane, both civil and transport, chief of the Federal Industry Agency Boris Alyoshin told Wednesday Interfax. According to him, it would be a wide-body airplane having capacity of 275-350 seats. And a corresponding transport version of it.
For the first time we are going to start such a large-scale cooperation in the civil area. In fact, it is a question of diversifying relations between China and Russia, which have mainly been focused on military projects, said Alyoshin.

He also noted this will be a commercial project. The Chinese side is as well interested in it, since in China underway are reforms too, including those in the aviation industry. The Chinese are as well operating toward shifting focus from budget component to commercial one. In the given case such a project might be of interest to the both sides.

This would be a joint development. We also would like to have the Chinese side involved in the project. So that it is not only a question of finance, but also a question of partnership, an of making this equipment in China, said Alyoshin.


82 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRIXrat From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10024 times:

Let's dream on for another 15-20 years if this so-called commercial project ever gets off the ground between Russia and China. Airbus is already poking it's nose into China, and guess what, who do you think will win the collaboration?

User currently offlineMrComet From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 538 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9999 times:

They could call it the Illusion 97.

While Russian and China are likely to be able to make a cheap plane, I am not sure they have enough of the technologies to make a competitive plane in that class. If they were serious, they would go after the 90-120 seat range that Boeing continues to ignore with a Mr. Magoo shortsidedness. Still, they'd only sell to third world LCCs for awhile but with a few cycles they might be able to sell quite a few airplanes.



The dude abides
User currently offlineGmcc From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 190 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9859 times:

Now we know where and with who the A350XWB will be developed.  stirthepot   duck 

User currently offlineKatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 702 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9803 times:

Quoting MrComet (Reply 2):
While Russian and China are likely to be able to make a cheap plane, I am not sure they have enough of the technologies to make a competitive plane in that class.

Russia has the technology to make military airplanes (fighters) that are aerodynamically superior/equal to Western counterparts. They make arguably the most reliable space ship (Soyuz). Russian aeronautical and space technology is superior to Western Europe. Chine is advancing very fast in terms of manufacturing technology. They can be a formidable competitor.

Overconfidence is what kills established companies. Remember when GM, Ford, VW or Mercedes laughed at Toyota and Honda? Today, Toyota makes 10x more profit than any of these companies, and sells more cars than any except GM, but next year they will probably beat GM, too.


User currently offlineDash8king From Canada, joined Nov 2001, 2742 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9606 times:

Just because it is a great machine doesnt mean it will be successful.

User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2952 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9489 times:

There will be still be sufficient Western components such as engines and avionics because the Western companies have a far superior products, unless they themselves come up with technology that is far better.
Still, they will have to come up with tons of money for R&D and be a systems integrator.
Frankly, I think something of a 200-300 seat plane would be perfect with the window of opportunity as Airbus finds itself locked into troubles with the A380 and the successor to the A330/340 still not defined too clearly.

Lastly, ten years ago would anybody though a small Brazilian-company that produced nothing bigger than thirty-seat props would alone be producing 100-seat jets? Unless one worked at Embraer, probably no.
Under the skin, it has Western avionics and engines; hence no problem with acceptance by carriers worldwide.


User currently offlineMrComet From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 538 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9351 times:

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 4):
Russia has the technology to make military airplanes (fighters) that are aerodynamically superior/equal to Western counterparts. They make arguably the most reliable space ship (Soyuz). Russian aeronautical and space technology is superior to Western Europe. Chine is advancing very fast in terms of manufacturing technology. They can be a formidable competitor.

I have no doubts of the formidability of Chinese and Russian technology, genius and innovation. I have been to both countries. However, I do have doubts about their ability to design low cost, hyper efficient, complex industrial projects using multiple vendors in multiple countries. Nothing works in Russia...not becuase its bad but there is always a breakdown somewhere in the system. China is the same. Corruption alone which is endemic will provide them from launching a serious airliners. However, Putin is sleazing his way to controlling of Eastern European industry through mafia ties -- add that to an expansionist industrial policy, huge goverment subsidies and extensive payoffs to corrupt airline management and he can make some progress but we've been through that before an it is not sustainable.

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 6):
Lastly, ten years ago would anybody though a small Brazilian-company that produced nothing bigger than thirty-seat props would alone be producing 100-seat jets? Unless one worked at Embraer, probably no.
Under the skin, it has Western avionics and engines; hence no problem with acceptance by carriers worldwide.

My point exactly. Start small and work your way up.



The dude abides
User currently offlineComeAndGo From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1041 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9293 times:

Quoting RIXrat (Reply 1):
Let's dream on for another 15-20 years if this so-called commercial project ever gets off the ground between Russia and China. Airbus is already poking it's nose into China, and guess what, who do you think will win the collaboration?

Are you sure Airbus wants to collaborate with China? From what I read, they want to build their A320s in China. Europe and the US don't want any technology transfered to China. How can Airbus design a new aircraft with China without transferring technology? Airbus will assemble existing aircraft in China. However, China wants to design and build aircraft, that's a totally different game.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6144 posts, RR: 35
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9292 times:

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 6):
Lastly, ten years ago would anybody though a small Brazilian-company that produced nothing bigger than thirty-seat props would alone be producing 100-seat jets? Unless one worked at Embraer, probably no.

10 years ago... not even in Embraer. The first ERJ-145 was only delivered 10 years ago.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineComeAndGo From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1041 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9170 times:

Yes, but…

Embraer developed a fighter aircraft with Alenia called AMX in the late 80's. That gave them enough knowhow to build wings for a passenger-jet. The rest they already knew how to do.


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9125 times:

Both the Russians and the Chinese lack customer knowledge and have limited understanding of after-sales support services.

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9121 times:

The Russian and Chinese markets alone are quite large. India and Africa and South America are also potential markets, along with much of south east Asia. All the high tech stuff would be sourced from the West just like with the 5 abreast Chinese airliner that just started selling.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 11):
Both the Russians and the Chinese lack customer knowledge and have limited understanding of after-sales support services.

This will take time to develop, but it can be done.


User currently offlineA380Heavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9005 times:

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 8):
Are you sure Airbus wants to collaborate with China? From what I read, they want to build their A320s in China. Europe and the US don't want any technology transfered to China. How can Airbus design a new aircraft with China without transferring technology? Airbus will assemble existing aircraft in China. However, China wants to design and build aircraft, that's a totally different game.

China will simply reverse engineer anything you give to them. They recently bought tooling from the Rover car company after it went bust and a few months later guess what - the first Roewe (pronounced Roe-wah) cars are coming off the production line in China.

At least now instead of just A versus B we'll have a 'C' as well with the 'Commi-jet'  Big grin



Flown in:732,733,734,738,742,752,763,772,F27,DC9,MD-11,A300,A332,ATR72,DHC-6,Bell206,C172,Auster,PA-28
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6144 posts, RR: 35
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8962 times:

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 10):
Yes, but…

Embraer developed a fighter aircraft with Alenia called AMX in the late 80's. That gave them enough knowhow to build wings for a passenger-jet. The rest they already knew how to do.

Yes, but... so do the Russians and Chinese (in fact, much larger military aircraft and way before Embraer)... and they still don't have any 100-seat airliners selling in the west. 10 years ago it wasn't because of "know how" that no one at EMB could have imagined that they'd be building 100-seat jets.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21502 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8950 times:

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 4):
Overconfidence is what kills established companies. Remember when GM, Ford, VW or Mercedes laughed at Toyota and Honda?

Toyota and Honda didn't start with the S-Class. They started with very small, budget minded cars and it took years and years to grow up.

Anyway, Russia is not Toyota. Russias been building passenger planes of all sized for years and years.

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 4):
Russia has the technology to make military airplanes (fighters) that are aerodynamically superior/equal to Western counterparts.

Fighter jets sit on the ground most of the time. 6 hours of downtime for every 1 in the air. They are not reliable, and need constant care and repair. Nor are they efficient.

Passenger planes are different.

It took Ferrari generations to leverage their racing heritage into a street car that not only worked well (that wasn't the hard part) but that didn't break down constantly and didn't require expensive rebuilds every few years.

The proper argument is that Russia has been building commercial jets for generations and could make a better one, if given the chance.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8945 times:

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 9):
Quoting Carpethead (Reply 6):
Lastly, ten years ago would anybody though a small Brazilian-company that produced nothing bigger than thirty-seat props would alone be producing 100-seat jets? Unless one worked at Embraer, probably no.

10 years ago... not even in Embraer. The first ERJ-145 was only delivered 10 years ago.

And who would have ever believed that a little French company, Sud Aviation, could not only produce a small regional jet -- the Caravelle -- but also sell it to United Airlines the the mid-1950's. UA had their problems with Sud Aviation, particularly with regard to customer support, but Sud Aviation got the message and got it right. And guess who Sud Aviation is today? Guess in what buildings in Toulouse the Caravelle and A300 were built in and where the A320 is today?

Please don't tell me what the Russians can't do. They are the best chess players, mathematicians and composers in the world. And remember that the first four engine transport aircraft was built in Russian by Igor Sikorsky during WWI


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8921 times:

I doubt it´ll happen, the strength of the Russian aviation is cargohauler- and
firefighting airplanes and helicopters, not passenger airplanes. Airbus and Boeing are heavy involved in Russia, taking up lot of local talent.
Sure PRC and Russia got lot of co-operation like the PRC space-program entirely based on Russian technology, PRC building Antonovs on licens,
flying Il-86s.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6144 posts, RR: 35
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8844 times:

Quoting Poitin (Reply 16):
And who would have ever believed that a little French company, Sud Aviation, could not only produce a small regional jet -- the Caravelle -- but also sell it to United Airlines the the mid-1950's.

Don't really see what relevance your post has. The Caravelle was designed and built at the dawn of the jet age (with the Comet nose and cockpit) and had no competiton... until the superior BAC 1-11 and then DC-9. Very different than today if a Russian or Chinese airliner goes up against Airbus or Boeing.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8713 times:

Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 13):
At least now instead of just A versus B we'll have a 'C' as well with the 'Commi-jet'

Good. It would push Airbus and Boeing to try harder and progress faster. I'd love to see another player in the airliner business.


User currently offlineMrComet From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 538 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8712 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):
The proper argument is that Russia has been building commercial jets for generations and could make a better one, if given the chance

What is stopping them? What chance do they need?

The Russians have a well known history making jets. They sell them for a fraction of what Boeing and Airbus does but they can't sell them to even their own airlines. It's not just technology. It's marketing, advertising, sales, customer support. Have you EVER BEEN TO RUSSIA. Good customer service is when someone doesn't hit you for asking for something (same in Bosnia I am afraid).

Start small. Learn. Grow. Copy. But to build a widebody to compete against the 787/A350???? Foolish.



The dude abides
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8638 times:

MrComet, don´t forget that banksupport is something that sell Airbus, Boeing and Embraer as well, if no banksupport then it´s difficult to sell any larger airplane in any larger numbers.

User currently offlineCyclonic From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 231 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8368 times:

This is something I wouldn't be surprised at. It could, nay, should happen.
Besdies, anything to get ride of those nasty green coloured cockpits!!  Smile



Keith Richards: The man that Death forgot...
User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8151 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 19):
Quoting A380Heavy (Reply 13):
At least now instead of just A versus B we'll have a 'C' as well with the 'Commi-jet'

Good. It would push Airbus and Boeing to try harder and progress faster. I'd love to see another player in the airliner business.

So would the airlines, who are pretty much fed up with Airbus at this point.


User currently offlineHamster From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 198 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7348 times:

There are brilliant minds all over the world - certainly Russian and China have their share. However, Russia is building jets today and I dont see one US carrier flying a TU-154. Is is because you have to call your life insurance company to see if your policy is current? The safety record on their planes is horrendous. China, well I just think they are painfully behind in terms of this technology. I certainly would invest my hard earned coin in that venture.

25 A342 : This post just shows your non-existing knowledge of the aircraft and their accidents. Flame me all you want, but if operated properly, I'd say they a
26 Hamster : Check their safety record. Stick to the facts.
27 Alessandro : Hamster, so it doesn´t matter under which circumstances they operate their aircrafts? How long did it take the IL-86 to have a fatal accident and how
28 NW727251ADV : Yes, you really do need to check your facts and get informed. There was a thread discussing the safety of the TU-154 a few weeks ago and the consensu
29 A342 : It is you who doesn't stick to the facts. It should be noted that most of the crashes are in Africa, mainly Congo. Proper mx facilities aren't availa
30 Concentriq : consulting?? As much as I would love for something good to happen to Russian aviation industry, i think they missed the boat. (anyone remember RRJ?)
31 A342 : What's wrong with it ? Construction has just started, and the engines are already running on the test beds.
32 Jonty : I think its quite good to get some "new blood" into the industry! you never know what could happen...
33 Alessandro : Conc, I think Airbus and Boeing been creaming off lot of the talent, tripple-7 success got a lot to thank to the Russian know-how.
34 RichardPrice : Nanjing Automobile Group purchased Rover in 2005, moved engine production to China and moved part of the car production to China. Shanghai Automotive
35 RIXrat : Allesandro, Regarding the B777 project, I doubt that Russian engineering had much to do with it. The aircraft was launched in 1990 a year before the S
36 Concentriq : I havent checked news on RRJ (Superjet 100) for some time. I didnt know. Thank you for pointing out my error.
37 AirSpare : I think that it is worthwhile to note, that Honda was more or less catapulted into strong sales by two random factors coming together at the same tim
38 ComeAndGo : They had a very successful commuter plane called EMB-120 Brasilia. In order to build a regional jet they needed knowhow on how to design a swept back
39 Thorny : Aside from fighters and high-thrust rocket engines, that is very much debatable. Western European satellite technology is comparable to that of Ameri
40 Ikramerica : But the quality of every example you give has gone DOWN with the shift, just the price is low so people are willing to deal with it. Or companies are
41 TrijetsRMissed : With Fokker's inability to develop a more advanced F100, and Boeing's decision to can the 717, the market was for the taking. Had MD not went under,
42 Planemaker : FYI, you don't need to design a light strike aircraft in order to get "know how" to design an RJ's swept back wing... e.g. Fokker didn't and nor did
43 ComeAndGo : Bombardie's RJ is based on their business jet. Besides Fokker and Bombardier had tons of experience when they started building RJ's. You can't compar
44 MrComet : Thank you. Obviously people here have never worked in Russia where corruption is not only endemic, it is a basic building block. The Russian miracle
45 A342 : This is currently improving. Just in case you haven't noticed: An improved Soyuz version was just successfully launched twice, and an even more sohis
46 RichardPrice : If it aint broke, dont fix it.
47 Thorny : At a snail's pace. Meanwhile, western satellite technology is not standing still, either. Of course, I'm not knocking Soyuz or its latest updated ele
48 Post contains links Rheinbote : http://www.embraer.com.br/english/content/empresa/profile.asp Based in São José dos Campos, Brazil, Embraer was founded in 1969 as a government ini
49 Alessandro : RIXrat, everyday since the launch people are working on the tripple-7 design, do you seriously think it stops after the maiden flight?
50 Planemaker : And before BBD's business jet???? No previous "swept wing designs". Same with Fokker. And those aren't the only two that have built RJ's with no prio
51 Post contains links Concentriq : ...not entirely correct, last time i looked into it. however if you are correct, it is not because of propultion systems or payload delivery vehicles
52 Thorny : False. Soyuz - No. Flights to Date: 97 Failures: 6 (Soyuz 1, Soyuz 11, Soyuz 18A, Soyuz 25, Soyuz 33, Soyuz T-10A.) Failure Rate: 6.19% Number of cos
53 Post contains links Pbottenb : STS83 landed safely and was relaunched as STS94... So was it really a failure? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-83
54 ComeAndGo : If those two planes were approved in the west they might sell. But the fact is, that they are not. So, a western airline can't buy them. Let's assume
55 Planemaker : Tu-154?? You've got the wrong plane. Aside that they both have sweep, you obviously do not realize that the design of a single-pilot light strke airc
56 Acidradio : Could there become an Asian version of Airbus - that is, a consortium of Asian aerospace manufacturers? And for the sake of discussion, we could throw
57 ComeAndGo : The sweep allows for a faster cruise flight. The wing construction may be derived from the same they used on the Brasilia. No, it's not. It's a russi
58 Planemaker : Just suggesting that the wing construction may be derived from the Brasilia clearly indicates that you really don't have any understanding of wings d
59 Thorny : STS-83 was launched on a mission to conduct two weeks of research in the Spacelab module carried in the cargo bay, but had to return after only three
60 PEK18R36L : You know, this comes back to an important point - there is a need for a short-range 300 seater in this part of the world that can fill the hole left
61 A342 : All that customers demand from satellite launches is reliability and a relatively low price. Clearly, the Soyuz delivers that. Let's do some math. So
62 Post contains links Thorny : We are in violent agreement here. I'm not saying Soyuz is a poor launcher. I'm saying its not modern technology and therefore is not superior to, say
63 Concentriq : Ok, Im grasing for straws here but, let us not forget 40-some unmanned missions by soyuz capsule, 5 vostok and similar number of voskhod missions. co
64 Post contains links Afay1 : Related article: http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2006/11/07/007.html
65 Thorny : Soyuz has nothing in common with Vostok/Voskhod. It is more or less to Vostok what Apollo was to Mercury. There were only two Voskhod (upgraded Vosto
66 Post contains images RIX : - last time I checked, Airbus was selling much better than Tupolev/Ilyushin/Yakovlev combined... even with Antonov appended . - hmmm... never heard a
67 Alessandro : Thorny, could you include the Chinese manned flights into Russias Sojuz number, since it´s based on Russian technology?
68 Cba : You mean, a reverse-engineered Soyuz capsule with a Chinese flag painted on it? Regarding launch technology, the Soyuz may be old, but it's still rel
69 Curmudgeon : "On earth" certainly. It's in the air that they are less than delicious. Have you ever flown a 154? Or been in one? To say that they are among the sa
70 Thorny : Eh... maybe. I think it is farther from Soyuz than is Progress, though. It has the same general layout, but it is 13% larger. The Orbital Module has
71 Post contains images Planemaker : Or geopolitcal conflicts, or economic recession, or.... Lots of things that could go wrong aside from the sheer challenge of launching a succesful pr
72 PPVRA : Aside from the sweep, wouldn't it basically be just a structural/mechanical engineering problem? It would seem like the experience EMB had with the E
73 Post contains images Curmudgeon : Yes indeed. In fact, I think that all of these will happen, as they always do. Other blips on the scope are plague (SARS, H5N1), terrorism, regional
74 Post contains links Planemaker : EMB also has wing design experience beyond the 2 examples you gave... there is also the EMB121 and CBA123, for example. However, all those aircraft a
75 A342 : And your judgement is based on what facts ? Tell us what's so wrong about it.
76 RIX : - I've flown on it a lot, never felt any unsafe, same for any other Soviet-designed airplane. Whatever "systems, propulsion, avionics, aerodynamics,
77 Curmudgeon : Thanks for the reply. I did mention the things wrong with it
78 PPVRA : Thanks for the info.
79 TrijetsRMissed : If you research you will find that the two major accidents involving the DC10, which ruined its reputation were infact not Douglas' fault. Maybe you
80 Curmudgeon : I'm sorry, I can't respond to the difference in former Soviet equipment v. western jets based on how someone feels while flying IN one. Without gettin
81 A342 : What is so primitive about them ? So what has that to do with safety ? Besides, the cruise speeds aren't lower. First, the cockpit layout wasn't any
82 Post contains images RIX : TrijetsRMissed, I was saying that amount of Soviet-built aircraft crashes because if design flaws is comparable to that of Western-built ones; as an e
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air China To Join Star Alliance posted Fri May 19 2006 14:16:30 by UAL777UK
China To Make Building Large Aircraft A Priority posted Fri Jan 6 2006 17:25:08 by WINGS
Air China To Join Star Or OneWorld This Year posted Thu Jun 6 2002 06:22:34 by Jiml1126
Air China To Join StarAlliance! posted Thu May 24 2001 08:21:03 by StarAlliance
China Souther To Join SkyTeam posted Wed Jun 28 2006 15:24:58 by AirMailer
Air China Accepts Invitation To Join Star Alliance posted Mon May 22 2006 18:37:29 by Singapore_Air
China Southern Likely To Join SkyTeam posted Mon Apr 11 2005 21:06:16 by Avek00
CHina To Halt Plane Deals posted Wed Dec 29 2004 05:49:03 by Scotron11
China To Participate In Building The A350. posted Tue Dec 7 2004 10:23:06 by Sabenapilot
China Southern To Join SkyTeam posted Mon Aug 23 2004 14:56:07 by SafetyDude