Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
simjim
Topic Author
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 4:14 am

Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:29 am

With the current crisis at Boeing and the huge backlog at Airbus, would it be profitable at this point in the market cycle for another western aerospace giant (e.g. Lockheed, Northrop) to invest in the C919 program and produce it in the west? maybe even build a larger version and get ahead in the MoM segment.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:46 am

-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19978
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Sun Apr 21, 2019 5:25 am

C919 has a third less range, is heavy for what it does, and has a bunch of western subsystems/systems that boost cost.

The highest impact on cost will be reliability. Have they gotten that right? Fixing a plan requires open communication, not saving face.

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:46 am

No and not even the MC-21.
The marvel that is the Cseries didn't stand a chance so imagine...
 
User avatar
lollomz
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 6:21 pm

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Sun Apr 21, 2019 1:21 pm

I think it will be the third choice in China, not in Europe or USA.
[url="http://www.diecastmodelaircraft.com/collection/Lollomz"]Image[/url]
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 926
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:49 pm

No, certainly not at the present time. What I can see happening is China selling it to poorer nations in Asia and Africa where it is currently spending billions in financial aid to expand its political and economic influence. They could make it a part of a financial aid package for a really low price which might offset some of the reliability issues. And, as long as it was flown short haul domestically, it could potentially avoid some of the certification issues that others have spoken about in other threads on the subject.

However, these are all large, "what-ifs." For the moment and the foreseeable future, the answer is almost certainly a resounding "No."
 
N766UA
Posts: 8335
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:28 pm

Of course not.
 
User avatar
DL747400
Posts: 956
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:04 pm

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:34 pm

Not going to happen even in the next decade. Perhaps by or beyond 2030 the Chinese will be able to deliver a reliable, competitive product? I do think it will eventually happen, but not anytime soon. The progress the Chinese need to make will take many years.
From First to Worst: The history of Airliners.net.

All posts reflect my opinions, not those of my employer or any other company.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7277
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:09 pm

You need a fantastic product, and more importantly product support, to break a duopoly. Airbus did just that to break the Boeing/MDD duopoly in the 70s but, Airbus also had to make some deals and practically give up profitability a few years to penetrate the market with the A300. Once they did that they saw an opening in the narrowbody market and the A320 happened and the rest is history.

Even the Sukhoi Superjet is having a hard time in the West, with Boeing as a partner in the program!
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1990
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:54 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
No and not even the MC-21.
The marvel that is the Cseries didn't stand a chance so imagine...


Well to be fair the CS/A220 doesn't target the same market as the C919/MC21/MAX/neo do, if you consider that only the A319neo can be compared to the 223 in terms of capacity, and it's optimised for longer routes. Airlines also seem more interested in larger aircraft, but I would be willing to bet the A220 is gonna see more major orders in the coming years. Actually I would be surprised if it didn't break the 1000 aircraft barrier before production ends considering how versatile and economical it is.
A350/CSeries = bae
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4939
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:55 pm

Absolutely not.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 882
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:59 pm

Aptivaboy wrote:
What I can see happening is China selling it to poorer nations in Asia and Africa where it is currently spending billions in financial aid to expand its political and economic influence.

This bears repeating. If the C-919 becomes a part of the new Silk Road initiative, it could create large regions of the world with the maintenance and distribution system to make this a very attractive aircraft.
 
Jet-lagged
Posts: 908
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 11:58 pm

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:09 am

This particular model won’t shatter the status quo, but it will create a few cracks.

Think in terms of two to four decades, and what has happened in other highly concentrated and sophisticated industries like mobiles phones, cellular network infrastructure, automobiles, shipbuilding, high speed rail, etc
 
sincx
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 5:01 pm

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:22 am

A 2019 Comac C919 is the equivalent of a 1979 Toyota Tercel. No one would buy it unless they absolutely have to, but give it 10-15 years and it may end up being a competitive, popular product.
 
TC957
Posts: 3809
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:37 am

The Chinese are fast learners - look at other high-tech industries. The C919 may be a lot of a lemon in it's present form, but in a decade, I think it'll surprise a few people.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4218
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:09 pm

And do keep in mind while A and B have a duopoly they do compete - fiercely and not always fairly. Their customers the airlines compete even more ferociously. Good planes like the 380 and the 767 (and no need to be contentious and name others) while good, were just not good enough. It often is a sum zero game.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
SEA
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:21 pm

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:03 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
And do keep in mind while A and B have a duopoly they do compete - fiercely and not always fairly. Their customers the airlines compete even more ferociously. Good planes like the 380 and the 767 (and no need to be contentious and name others) while good, were just not good enough. It often is a sum zero game.


The 767 wasn't good enough??
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4218
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:18 pm

The 767 was a good plane, but it was not able to compete with later versions of the 330. No one has come up with an update to make it competitive with equivalent Airbus offerings. But as a freighter and tanker it has excelled. Otherwise its order pretty well died about 2000. The 330 had super years 2005-2014.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
hmmwv
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:44 am

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:37 pm

Competing with MAX and NEO has never been the target of the C919 program, the goal is to establish the capability to produce mainline passenger aircraft, while the ARJ-21 was to reestablish a civilian jet infrastructure and assemble a design team. If the C919 can start commercial service it'll be a success, if it end up with a large enough production run that recoup Comac's capital investment then it'll be a resounding success. Similarly CR929 is not there to challenge 787 and 350, but rather establish the capability to build an acceptable wide body aircraft, while entering revenue service is most likely required, more importantly it'll provide a special purpose platform such as VIP transport, AEW&C, aerial refueling, and ELINT.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19978
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:27 pm

hmmwv wrote:
Competing with MAX and NEO has never been the target of the C919 program, the goal is to establish the capability to produce mainline passenger aircraft, while the ARJ-21 was to reestablish a civilian jet infrastructure and assemble a design team. If the C919 can start commercial service it'll be a success, if it end up with a large enough production run that recoup Comac's capital investment then it'll be a resounding success. Similarly CR929 is not there to challenge 787 and 350, but rather establish the capability to build an acceptable wide body aircraft, while entering revenue service is most likely required, more importantly it'll provide a special purpose platform such as VIP transport, AEW&C, aerial refueling, and ELINT.

The issue is Chinese airlines will be handicapped if the aircraft are not competitive.

If the aircraft cost more to opperate (fuel, maintenance, down time) it means China grows less.

I agree for VIP/Military use.
MA-60, simple upgrade as a learning excercise. Failed. Upgrade to MA-600, learning design tricks for durability, failed.

The ARJ-21 was to develop process and compete with prior generation to setup the aerospace industry. It was to kickstart the supply chain for the C919.

The C919 was to be competitive. Enough that COMAC could make a small profit. Allow China to take back 50% of the high value work to increase the standard of living. It also builds up the aerospace vendor chain and allowed for learning good aerospace design practice. It has failed.

I'm not getting the C929. It is so poorly laid out, as a program, how can it succeed?

We can go back further. The pure top down approach fails in aerospace. China cannot kick that habit.

The MC-21 is a good design. Is enough support short brothers? Aircraft require continuous improvement to be any good. The 737 had 2 complete hydraulic system redesigns. The NEO is 2 generations of FBW ahead of the CEO. E.g., the A320 wouldn't sell today if not for a major structural program to increase service life to 60,000 Flight cycles (FC) and 120,000 flight hours (FH) from 48,000 FC and 60,000 FH.

The A220 will need an extension from 60,000 FC and 90,000 FH to be competitive.

No one talks ARJ-21 or C919 FC or FH as they are so struggling to get the plane working. But LH puts 120,000 FH in 26 years. The MA-60s were all scrapped by year 4 (or abandoned).

I can build anything for a 600 cycle life. That is trivial. My team barely has to put in thought for 6,000 cycles or 30,000 FH design. For 12,000 FC and 48,000 FH, we can do a rush job. For more, we engineer.

Anyone can build a prototype that occasionally flies. To build one that does 600+ flights takes some thought. This is a commercials aircraft. They must be a better option than buying used 737ng or A320CEO or money is wasted. By better I mean economics of fuel burn, maintenance bill, and not pissing off customers by bad flight completion.

Unless you want to significantly degrade the capacity of Chinese airports, the dispatch reliability must be > 99%. Since engines, avionics, breaks, and other subsystems are bought, if durability isn't good, cost exceeds benefit.

I get what the Chinese are attempting. But the NEO and MAX are not standing targets. Airbus will probably do:
1. Engine PIPs
2. Durability PIP
3. Efficiency PIP on airframe.

Boeing will do the same, except probably skip the major airframe durability PIP: 737 has 110,000 FC and 125,000 FH, Airbus couldn't design for the A320 90,000 FC and 180,000 FH, so Airbus cannot do enough to stop Boeing sales just as the mere 48,000 FC/60,000 FH A320 could sell. I expect a 65 to 72k FC at 2 hours per cycle as first A320-200 to be end of life are on hours.

For the C919 to make airlines money, 36,000 FC and 72,000 FH are the minimum LOV with 99%+ dispatch reliability. You cannot hand wave away performance in an opperations industry.

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19978
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:27 pm

hmmwv wrote:
Competing with MAX and NEO has never been the target of the C919 program, the goal is to establish the capability to produce mainline passenger aircraft, while the ARJ-21 was to reestablish a civilian jet infrastructure and assemble a design team. If the C919 can start commercial service it'll be a success, if it end up with a large enough production run that recoup Comac's capital investment then it'll be a resounding success. Similarly CR929 is not there to challenge 787 and 350, but rather establish the capability to build an acceptable wide body aircraft, while entering revenue service is most likely required, more importantly it'll provide a special purpose platform such as VIP transport, AEW&C, aerial refueling, and ELINT.

The issue is Chinese airlines will be handicapped if the aircraft are not competitive.

If the aircraft cost more to opperate (fuel, maintenance, down time) it means China grows less.

I agree for VIP/Military use.
MA-60, simple upgrade as a learning excercise. Failed. Upgrade to MA-600, learning design tricks for durability, failed.

The ARJ-21 was to develop process and compete with prior generation to setup the aerospace industry. It was to kickstart the supply chain for the C919.

The C919 was to be competitive. Enough that COMAC could make a small profit. Allow China to take back 50% of the high value work to increase the standard of living. It also builds up the aerospace vendor chain and allowed for learning good aerospace design practice. It has failed.

I'm not getting the C929. It is so poorly laid out, as a program, how can it succeed?

We can go back further. The pure top down approach fails in aerospace. China cannot kick that habit.

The MC-21 is a good design. Is enough support short brothers? Aircraft require continuous improvement to be any good. The 737 had 2 complete hydraulic system redesigns. The NEO is 2 generations of FBW ahead of the CEO. E.g., the A320 wouldn't sell today if not for a major structural program to increase service life to 60,000 Flight cycles (FC) and 120,000 flight hours (FH) from 48,000 FC and 60,000 FH.

The A220 will need an extension from 60,000 FC and 90,000 FH to be competitive.

No one talks ARJ-21 or C919 FC or FH as they are so struggling to get the plane working. But LH puts 120,000 FH in 26 years. The MA-60s were all scrapped by year 4 (or abandoned).

I can build anything for a 600 cycle life. That is trivial. My team barely has to put in thought for 6,000 cycles or 30,000 FH design. For 12,000 FC and 48,000 FH, we can do a rush job. For more, we engineer.

Anyone can build a prototype that occasionally flies. To build one that does 600+ flights takes some thought. This is a commercials aircraft. They must be a better option than buying used 737ng or A320CEO or money is wasted. By better I mean economics of fuel burn, maintenance bill, and not pissing off customers by bad flight completion.

Unless you want to significantly degrade the capacity of Chinese airports, the dispatch reliability must be > 99%. Since engines, avionics, breaks, and other subsystems are bought, if durability isn't good, cost exceeds benefit.

I get what the Chinese are attempting. But the NEO and MAX are not standing targets. Airbus will probably do:
1. Engine PIPs
2. Durability PIP
3. Efficiency PIP on airframe.

Boeing will do the same, except probably skip the major airframe durability PIP: 737 has 110,000 FC and 125,000 FH, Airbus couldn't design for the A320 90,000 FC and 180,000 FH, so Airbus cannot do enough to stop Boeing sales just as the mere 48,000 FC/60,000 FH A320 could sell. I expect a 65 to 72k FC at 2 hours per cycle as first A320-200 to be end of life are on hours.

For the C919 to make airlines money, 36,000 FC and 72,000 FH are the minimum LOV with 99%+ dispatch reliability. You cannot hand wave away performance in an opperations industry.

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4975
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:37 pm

SEA wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
And do keep in mind while A and B have a duopoly they do compete - fiercely and not always fairly. Their customers the airlines compete even more ferociously. Good planes like the 380 and the 767 (and no need to be contentious and name others) while good, were just not good enough. It often is a sum zero game.


The 767 wasn't good enough??
Explain that statement and why. The 767 architecture led to the B777 and later the B787.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4975
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Can the Comac C919 break the airliner duopoly?

Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:41 pm

simjim wrote:
With the current crisis at Boeing and the huge backlog at Airbus, would it be profitable at this point in the market cycle for another western aerospace giant (e.g. Lockheed, Northrop) to invest in the C919 program and produce it in the west? maybe even build a larger version and get ahead in the MoM segment.

Why would Lockheed or Northrop turn over technology to China or Russia? Are you Kidding? Even they woud do NO Such Thing if they were in a position to. And Forget Northrop Grumman. You must have a headache..

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos