China built a 737 MAX replacement. No one wants it...

[@davidchan4012]

I think COMAC built the C919 not to compete with either Boeing or Airbus because the duopoly is simply impossible to break at least in the next few decades. C919 is built for China to gain experience in building big commercial jets with the final goal of becoming less dependent on the US or the EU.

[@alfredosauce1]

Exactly. Especially as the world shifts multipolar, and seeing how Russia was recently sanctioned. This sends a message to all rival powers to become less dependent on the West.

[@quicksesh]

problem is they can't develop the aircraft ... they lack the ability to build engines, avionics, etc.

[@dan339dan]

@@quicksesh Engines are coming up and in certifications currently. Of course not as advanced, but the goal of C919 is to eventually be able to swap out the engine options and other components for homemade alternatives.

[@quicksesh]

@@dan339dan the issue with China is they can copy things but they lack the ability to develop - their standards in metallurgy is shocking and as far as in house designed electronics they are decades behind .. bear in mind they only bolt together parts from other manufacturers not actually develop anything .. if they are limited to utilising the LEAP 1C variant engine and.or some of the older wide body engines they will still be 20 years behind the curve.

[@Engulfing_Darkness]

Just like many viewers here, I am of the opinion that China and Russia are building their own planes to move away from the dependency on the west. Considering how weaponized western financial system is, I can see how this trend is going to continue on.

[@kevinc1200]

I mean COMAC is not even offering it outside of China, given the backlog of orders from Chinese airlines.

[@ytn00b3]

State owned airliners in China are kind of forced to order it.

[@yarpos]

@@ytn00b3 So different from Europe where there is noooooo pressure to buy Airbus. Especially in the Airbus funding countries.

[@AZ-dj1ni]

​@@ytn00b3Is China forcing it or is it the uncertainty of future sanctions from the United States and Europe? Given the current situation of the trade war that the United States started and the anti-China policy, I think it is the 2nd

[@ytn00b3]

@@AZ-dj1ni trade war was actually started by China by not following WTO code as well as not killing pirated supply chains and not to forget the wide industrial espionage. I have so much examples and evidences to show China is the one who started trade war.

[@ytn00b3]

@@yarpos Airbus using American & British parts and technologies - US can stop Airbus trading with China if they want to.

[@hikarikaguraenjoyer9918]

They can't buy the C919 cause its not certified in Europe or America yet, Airbus didn't sell any A300s until Eastern Airlines was offered to test the type out for example. So its too early to write the program out as a complete failure.

[@bobsmith3983]

The program is a success without doubt.

[@SafepathUS]

The Comac C919 has been given an airworthiness certificate from 27 countries around the world. Try to seek search results before misinformation.

[@SafepathUS]

This is the video explanation of how the Comac C919 has already established the airworthiness certificate from countries around the world. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hpDXapx8bbGhldU

[@hikarikaguraenjoyer9918]

@@SafepathUS Not in Europe, and not in America, without EASA certification the C919 cannot sell in the EU and few airlines in surrounding countries will buy it. Without FAA certification it cannot sell in North America as Canada and Mexico tend to follow the FAA. The FAA and EASA are unfortunately the two most important regulators as of right now. Know what you’re talking about before acting smug.

[@bobsmith3983]

It's copium by the West. The duopoly is over.

[@kjin1013]

You missed the point completely. C919 is built to meet China's domestic needs, rather than for international market.

[@johnxie8312]

Is built to flatter the dictator

[@kjin1013]

@johnxie8312 then, true enemies of the dictator should neither be afraid of nor obstruct it.

[@jeffbenton6183]

All he set out to do was explain why international buyers aren't interested. It is true that the plane is intended to serve domestic carriers, but - if it cam do that well (and it probably would) its still an important question to ask why international buyers aren't interested. As he pointed out from the start, they *say* they *do* want a third competitor, and a new narrow-body would be the perfect way to introduce one. He's not really criticizing the jet - he's just looking at it from a different angle.

[@hangmatchahang5260]

This Cody explains dude is such sour grapes. He is so jealous when he sees China’s success. This is so humiliating

[@Whatisnottaken]

Nope, he didn’t missed anything. It is called selective reporting. It is not that nobody wants it but of course he will not mention the fact that potential customers outside China are just waiting for the certification from the U.S and European authorities. It is obvious that they have reasons to drag their feet.

[@lostcarpark]

There is an important reason you didn't mention why no one outside China is ordering the C919 - certification. As far as I know, it's only certified in China (and only since 2022). EASA have said certification in Europe will be after 2026 (but haven't said how much after). FAA have not said when US certification might happen - if at all. That's just too much uncertainty for airlines to place orders. At present it can only be flown by Chinese airlines, and only on internal Chinese routes. That's still a pretty huge market to go after. That's the other factor, Cormac don't need to go after international orders right now, and probably won't need to until the end of the decade, and by then the plane could look very different, and hopefully a lot more competitive.

[@TrapKingz.]

Exactly! How could he have not mentioned this super important point..?

[@user-yt198]

@@TrapKingz. Because in that case he couldn't use a provocative title like "No one wants it".

[@muhammadhanifkurnaen6689]

Domestic airlines in china needs sheer number of aircraft. So comac will be fine

[@kiraasuka9943]

​@@TrapKingz.Coz in Western eyes China, or any yellow skin, is a sin. Look at someone in middle East, no western gov blames her doing genocide because, well, they r white. History always repeats herself, it's always one race kill another

[@xsu-is7vq]

It can fly internationally route, to countries that recognize Chinese certification. There are a fair numbers of them in Asia.

[@Decoy0527]

Coby, Coby, Coby !! The C919 is not certified to sell outside China. Until it is, everything you said about it not being in demand is meaningless. Do another video......after it's certified. You kinda wasted my time here.

[@Alladin-n5j]

That's utter rubbish

[@mfundomthethwa7507]

I trusted him too, so disappointed 😢

[@busofmauritius8306]

Glad I read the comments before watching

[@dannytadashi4235]

@@Alladin-n5jwho is utterl rubbish? Coby is rubbish yes I agree HAHAHAHAHA LOL 😂😂👍👍‼️

[@phoebusquan1876]

A garbage cancan fly

[@yuema2078]

Just a few years ago Elon was laughing at Chinese EV's, boy that has changed.

[@kristoffersonaribal1573]

Because he was stupid. He forgets that Chinese companies have the CCP to grant them infinite funds to absorb the massive price cuts.

[@jeciel85]

Tofu cars like their bridges.

[@CasperChicago]

Foolishly Tesla (like Apple) gave up its trade secrets to be in the Chinese market. Elon is not laughing at Chinese EV manufactures any more simply because he gave them his tech secrets, his management secrets and his manfacturing secrets. NOT OTHER EV MANUFACTURER IN THE WOLRLD HAS ACCESS TO TO TESLA'S SECRETS,...Elon gave up everything to the Chinese EV,...every thing!

[@LawasSarawak]

@@jeciel85 like Baltimore bridge , Tofu premium

[@_Wai_Wai_]

​@@LawasSarawakirony one of the ship crew was Ukrainian.

[@greyjay9202]

The main problem with the C919 is not technical -- its political. Western airlines don't want to associate themselves too closely with China. China could also buy aircraft parts (engines, etc.) from Russia, which has a well established aircraft industry. Would I fly on a Comac? Sure. Why not. Many westerners have already done so.

[@january10005]

Prefer than boeing 737 max

[@larryt4884]

Russia's aircraft industry is is shambles lately. Chinese will be there too, just as their building industry. Never trust commies.

[@mohwybar5832]

@@january10005the 737 max is better and it’s certified in every country not just one

[@PublicMoviesDomain]

@@mohwybar5832 still crashed and killed 100s of people Comac has not

[@huke911]

@@mohwybar5832A lot of issue with 737MAX . WESTERN media is hiding.

[@d.b.cooper1]

It doesn’t need to compete. It’s simply to reduce reliance on the duopoly whilst building a new domestic industry

[@FreeSpeech-z6j]

seriously, given a choice, nobody wants Chinese junk (not even the chinese want their own crap)

[@tbirdboy]

Disagree. The Chinese have this "Belt and Road" initiative that was to create partnerships and share ideas, at least that's what the CN Ministry's spokeswoman always says. But in fact it is somewhat of a payday loan shop by funding subpar construction projects, designed and built by chinese workers only to margin call while said projects crumble. The Chinese Government have gotten greedy and look for way to maximize their revenue, as quickly as it can usually at the expense of quality and detail.

[@anthonyokoth8140]

How long did it take for China to take over the auto industry??

[@Dept246]

The Chinese will save billions for the domestic market instead of buying Boeing and Airbus. Plus it protects them from economic sanctions from the USA or NATO.

[@achangyw]

Brilliant reasoning.

[@308_Negra_Arroyo_Lane]

A mere couple of years ago the same was said about Chinese cars. Now everyone is saying that they can't compete against China.

[@bobsmith3983]

Even Elon said so. Without trade barriers the US, European and Japanese car manufacturers would go bankrupt trying to compete with Chinese made autos.

[@achangyw]

You never know.

[@chrissmith2114]

That means cannot compete on price because China has battery monopoly and like to dump stuff on the west below production costs. As for quality most Chinese stuff is made from Tofu.

[@aj2228]

@@chrissmith2114 when the US competes, it's called "freedom". when China competes, it's called "dumping" and "over capacity". Sore losers?

[@gf5617]

💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥🛻🛻🛻🛻🛻

[@memostothefuture]

I've flown on the C919 and done extensive filmmaking with COMAC and from what I can tell they have zero interest in even trying to sell to US carriers at the moment. That's why they didn't try to certify it yet with the FAA either. Their aim is to learn and to ramp up production and take as large a share of the upcoming 8,000 narrowbodies Chinese airlines are expected to order in the next 15 years. That's also why the Leap 1C is good enough - you can cover a huge amount of routes in China with that. I expect South American and African carriers to order the C919 in a few years but am seeing this aircraft as akin to the A300, which also could not get orders in the US before AA finally did it. The goal at COMAC these last ten years has not to build the best airplane but to build an airplane. They wanted to get rolling. This reminds me of Chinese car makers, whose products sucked badly for many years and now all of a sudden with makers like BYD, NIO, Xpeng, Geely and others are making the Germans and Tesla sweat bullets in many countries. But the question is if COMAC going on a similar trajectory should bother us? I would argue that more nuance than what the "China = bad" crowd tends to yell is required: if we love aviation and want to see progress then competition is good. If they cause Airbus and Boeing to not rest on laurels so they won't be the next equivalent to a legacy car maker who lost their business (Hello, GM and Ford) in half of the countries they used to make fat profits in, then we as the customers and passengers win.

[@teckhocktan5696]

You have the best comments here. Love it! And people wonder why the West is failing and cannot catch up anymore.

[@stabilo3170]

No interest to sell to US carriers ...hahahaha! ... So funny to read. The truth is that they dont'n have the slighted chance to sell it outside China.

[@marcmcreynolds2827]

@@teckhocktan5696 Only ignorant people would wonder that, since the PRC is actually behind by about 20 years in airliners (e.g. the specs for the C919 compare to A320s Airbus was selling a couple of decades ago). More like 30 years in space lift/space science, and I'm being quite generous there. The gap is smaller for military aerospace, but still sizable. Forty-plus years ago I imagined that COMAC would catch up to Western airframers in about twenty years, but that never happened. Despite all the outside help, the gap hasn't closed much if at all. Instead, Western players have advanced their product specs as fast or faster than COMAC can learn the business. Recall that even with the DC-9 as a starting point, the ARJ21 took forever to get off the drawing boards and into the air. Likewise for the C919.

[@teckhocktan5696]

@@marcmcreynolds2827 hahaha. If it's really not that important or not that advance, the West wouldn't be that panic to sanction China here and there. Just look at Boeing how much they have fallen. You can live in a bubble all you want. But we are not.

[@teckhocktan5696]

@@marcmcreynolds2827 I'm happy you proved my point.

[@gelinrefira]

Lol you people are really afraid, aren't you. The most salient point anyone should be taking from the introduction of C919 is the fact that China, which has the largest manufacturing capacity and some of the best technological know-how has finally build a commercial airliner. This means that the western duopoly is now in danger of ceding market share and even being threaten by a newcomer. This is not bombardier from Canada or Embraer from Brazil. This is Cormac from CHINA, which is the only country that can take on the entire west in any arena, and win. C919 is not selling outside of China. But then neither was Chinese phones, EVS, solar panels, and even semiconductors, and a whole slew of stuff that the west have always thought that their dominance is unassailable. It is only a matter of time that comac will produce an airliner that has all the characteristics that airline companies desire and able to produce it faster, and cheaper than Boeing and Airbus. This is just the first step and every time China boldly steps into a new industry previously dominated by the west, we get videos like this saying ohh no one buys their product blah blah blah. 5, 10, 20 years down the road, they all shut up. You will eat your words.

[@a.m.9357]

Absolutely. The bullies and hypocrites of the US & Europe are scared. So they come up with all sorts of lies...lol They are really, really scared.

[@mikespencer237]

They can only build what they can steal from the west, except for maybe fireworks? You are an idiot.

[@jimmywijaya8926]

wasn't that what was talked in the video? you didn't watch it? it's a video informing on current situation and mostly based on fact. what you wrote while I agree with some of it, is mostly speculative. if you want to watch speculation, why not make one instead?

[@gelinrefira]

@@jimmywijaya8926 it is also factual that China has become dominant in any industries it chooses to make it as a strategic objective to become self sufficient.

[@aznpetyaw]

@@jimmywijaya8926 no, video didn't inform about the above statement, the video stated that China sucks at tech and no one should fear it.

[@TA-8787]

I just realised Leap 1-A for Airbus Leap 1-B for Boeing Leap 1-C for Comac

[@tristanx3508]

Lol, good observation. Airbus is a type of bus that can fly Boeing (blowing) planes quality continue to decline and hopefully doesn't blowup

[@amyx231]

I fear for Leap 1-D then. Doomed?

[@spenofzeros]

@@amyx231dornier

[@AlphaGametauri]

Leap 1-E for Embraer?

[@gabrielchoong9539]

Remember those Chinese cars from a decade ago? Just saying….

[@user-yt198]

Welcome to another controversial video by Coby. Comac didn't apply to FAA or EASA or any other regulator (except Indonesia and Brunei) for certification. This means they don't want to sell C919 outside China and a few friendly countries for now. Current orders will make them busy for at least 5 years and during this time they will iron out teething problems. As a result, it is not fair to say no one wants it, because it is only for sale for limited countries. Having said so, it is neither cheaper than 737, nor better than A320 and Airbus is already working on A320neo++.

[@soccerguy2433]

So no one wants it. Even COMAC knew it so didn't apply.

[@cliffordnelson8454]

Good comment.

[@MrSchwabentier]

@@soccerguy2433well i mean they got 1300 orders already, so why would they spend money on a certification process that they currently don’t even need

[@bunyavissuthisorn8774]

​@@MrSchwabentierAre 1300 orders from Asia and EU?

[@MrSchwabentier]

@@bunyavissuthisorn8774 thats the point. They have 1300 orders from China. So why would they spend money on a certification in EU or US

[@richardrada8108]

Jonathan: I believe you are seriously uninformed. I’ve never heard of A-300 being addressed as a failure. Wide body comfort and twin engine economy. A first. Small niche carriers? I was a pilot w Eastern Airlines about a hundred years ago and EAL introduced this aircraft to USA. I was a crewmember on A-300 & it was awesome. Also long histories with AA, FedEx, UPS. Real niche carriers. I read 561 were built. Cutting edge at the time. Next time put your bathing suit on before you jump in the pool.

[@prichter9798]

Eastern Who? LOL A-300 was a niche aircraft.

[@richardrada8108]

@@prichter9798 The Wings of Man, that Eastern

[@imwsss726]

I mean, A300 as a commercial aircraft was definitely on the successful side, but Airbus struggled to sell the A300 in the beginning and almost went bankrupt, didn't it? Wasn't that a failure in the beginning?

[@78bollox]

I wouldn't get on one

[@MSDGroup-ez6zk]

@@dabfan6924 Jonathan is just a USA bot.

[@guangyuanyang9306]

As said repeatedly in the comment section, this video completely missed the point. Using a provocative title like "No one wants it" and avoid talking about certification, really?

[@bensun5978]

COMAC had previously said that its C919 orders exceeded 1,000 and came mostly from Chinese airlines.

[@shawnz3307]

shhhhh, nobody wants it.

[@bensun5978]

@@shawnz3307 China Market is big enough

[@LawasSarawak]

@@shawnz3307 just took away boeing and airbus dough

[@eggspresso8340]

It’s not important if they sell outside of China for now. It’s important they have local airlines flying them and, in the mean time, they learn how to improve and perfect it. Is a long term strategy.

[@balkanleopard9728]

Yes! Does anyone really think that COMAC bosses just woke up one morning and said: "Let's build the C919"? Everything about Chinese modernisation has years of underlying study and review.

[@lilunchengsmiles]

The Chinese government is known for its long-term strategic planning. When it targets a specific industry, it often aims for dominance within a couple of decades. For example, China began focusing on the electric vehicle industry in 2004, which has since grown significantly and became very competitive . Similarly, it's only a matter of time before China's commercial aviation sector becomes competitive.

[@aznjchau]

The Western world has caught onto this, and now using their overcapacity against them. If no one is buying, their manufacturers who expanded too much will go bankrupt.

[@merlinpix]

Yes, now if the premium EV cars such as the BYD's didn't spontaneously combust for no apparent reason except poor quality control practices. Someday in the far, far distant future they may measure up to the poorest foreign EV cars. No reason to believe their aircraft will not follow the same path.

[@ALMacahilo-ct5su]

But in aviation things are diferent airlines know better they would hesitate to buy it because it has a alot of problems just like chinese ev cars ching haw shoo ccp bots

[@balkanleopard9728]

@@merlinpix Please, BYD is not a premium brand - and they actually have some of the very best (and safest) battery technology in the world. Chinese ev's are generally better, in every respect, when compared with other world brands. On the matter of safety, I recommend that you look at which country first grounded the 737 Max after the second fatal crash. Hint, it wasn't the USA.

[@balkanleopard9728]

Chinese airlines are very aware of existing and forthcoming US sanctions against China. Selling outside China is nice for Comac, but not essential. The C919 serves two fundamental purposes. It provides both a suitable aircraft for the Chinese market and a learning bed for Comac. Let's wait a bit before calling this issue. Remember that Elon Musk dismissed Chinese ev's a couple of years ago but now Jim Farley is driving one.

[@namaraalexmbeikya1491]

Same thing happened to BYD with Elon Musk Laughing at it. What's happening now?

[@TommyAlpha-gg3ig]

Really, no one wants it. It doesn't mean every passenger want to fly with Boeing with landing gear falt

[@amos325]

It’s the mentality like this keep Chinese wining

[@Mr_Logician]

*winning*

[@Richie_]

@@Mr_Logician deluded he is.

[@CJN3423.]

Very humble, hard working, patient to learn and with long term plans...So, advancements are naturally !😂🎉

[@htaukkyanmyo4437]

Inner width of body; 737MAX is 11'-6.5"; 320neo is 12'-2"; C919 is 13'-0". Boeing 737MAX is about 1'-6" narrower than a C919. No wonder it was crammed.

[@leonardlin6459]

an american making review on China product you sure smell sourness

[@dogsand77]

you can smell a sore loser from far away

[@Richie_]

a little Pink

[@ivangohome]

Good thing u r not on Chinese platform😅

[@phillarnach9484]

Nonsense, its a very fair review.

[@phillarnach9484]

A Chinaman making comment on China product, too funny!

[@xiaoxiaopeng8207]

Orders for the C919 have been scheduled for decades.What they need to solve now is the capacity problem.

[@michael72012]

China’s priority is not to sell any C919 to other countries but to replace all American made, it’s very dangerous to operate a aircraft controlled by someone treat you as an enemy, last year’s flight accident in China from Kunming to Guangzhou is a wake up call

[@yfelwulf]

1300 ordered from countries world wide including ISRAELISTAN 🇺🇸 gotta love these PROPAGANDA CHANNELS

[@maphantom]

@@yfelwulf Israel didn't buy c919 as far as i know. Can i ask you to tell me where did you get that information?

[@jus7addwater]

This is not the actual issue, its a poor aircraft.

[@LawasSarawak]

@@jus7addwater sky fall 737 max Pain

[@ikkong8436]

Hello Coby. Would you like to do a new video on the C919 now? Did you know that AirAsia, the best low-cost carrier in the world, has just confirmed an order for 100 of the C919? What is your comment on this?

[@PangetKano]

I don’t care what Skytrax says, AirAsia is basically Spirit Asia. If they buy China jets it’s just one more reason to never fly with them.

[@daniquinz]

Come on stop talking trash... Boeng quality is not superior to C919 given the recently 2 crashes on its latest highly acclaimed 737 Max.

[@CammieRacing]

The EU also have no reason to certify the C919 to fly in European airspace, they'll want to protect Airbus and to a lesser extent Boeing.

[@wpgc2]

It's not just the certification, carriers and Comac also face serious political risks to buy from or sell to the west. I don't expect to see C919 in the west anytime soon until China can secure the supply chain. This eventually will happen but will take time.

[@robertlheath]

Problem with buying from China is a balance of trade problem for EU countries.

[@brck888]

Your idea is very good, if the EU does not allow, then China will also reduce Airbus orders, whose market is bigger

[@robertlheath]

@@brck888 That’s not true. China is already buying a ton of airbus aircraft and on top of it. The Chinese already know that there’s a massive trade deficit with many European countries. It’s in their best interest to buy Airbus products.

[@spacealien6333]

You literally have no idea what you're talking about. Good thing we don't have you running the EASA. Otherwise, their aircraft certification decisions would be based mostly on politics, instead of safety.

[@kunlong-vp2qx]

The FACT is: No one wants BOEING now. Another whistleblower is dead by "accident".

[@challox3840]

Airlines will buy new boeings anyway because the production is there. They might prefer an airbus, but it is better to have a flawed plane than no plane at all, as long as it has a good enough safety margin. The MAX certainly has its flaws, but I would wager that most airlines would consider it "good enough"

[@geraldscott4302]

The Chinese communist party murders thousands of people every year. And Chinese quality is even worse than Boeing. Yes, it really is THAT bad.

[@LawasSarawak]

@@challox3840 ok boeing is a hazard but everyone want it, nothing to do with safety or reliability

[@seriessplayer62747]

That’s just not true, the 787 is one of the safest plane in the sky and highly optimized for long haul

[@Pathfinder1932-t5d]

Citing a dead whistle blower as proof no one wants Boeing says more about you than Boeing. The FACT is: Airlines will continue to operate their Boeing aircraft and purchase new ones.

[@texedomel01]

The C919 is not meant to compete w/ Boeing and Airbus, at least not for many years. It aims to replace Boeing and Airbus w/ domestically produced aircraft. Every one C919 in service means one fewer order for the big two. Regional flights in China is a big market by itself. The big two losing this piece is a kick in the groin.

[@alanyuan8565]

Yes of course.

[@jeffbenton6183]

​@zaffvideos5688 He didn't call it a failure. He only set out to explain why foreign carriers- the same ones who say they'd like options other than Boeing and Airbus - don't seem to be interested. He also said that, if anyone can do it, it's China. Do you think he should "do more homework" before saying that, too? This video is clearly not China-bashing.

[@jeffbenton6183]

That may be so, but given the rate of production, it's not going to completely replace Boeing and Airvus even domestically for at least another decade or so. In any case, the video wasn't about whether the C919 failed to live up to its purpose or not. It was only about why it isn't currently seen as competitive with the A320neeo and 737 MAX.

[@littlehippo5004]

this is simply false. With such massive backlogs from domestic airlines, C919 orders fill future need and do not replace any foreign orders. Nobody is getting kicked when there is a decade-long backlog. As the video said, China is going to need 8000 new planes in the next 6 years, and COMAC will be lucky to produce 50 a year before 2030. You do the math, nobody is getting kicked in the groin lol

[@balkanleopard9728]

@@jeffbenton6183 That's a bit of a stretch. This is clearly another anti-China / China failing, piece - damming with carefully couched, faint praise comes to mind.

[@wintersl4544]

20 years later, we will watch this video again. If this video still exists, I hope C9X9 will fly in the skies of the United States.

[@medlogics.a.s.4410]

When this kind of videos start to appear it's the clear sign that we are only a few years away of hearing the us and europe governments say that due to the "overproduction" of the Chinese airplane manufacturer they have to impose tariffs and/or limit the sales of Chinese aircraft in their countries...

[@itsme-vw5yo]

Such big words for a starting company. Remember that they can barely build 5 planes a year how many years do we need to w8

[@pedromr20000]

Exactly!!

[@fireeagle107]

Be aware, this video is created by a person who never flew with C919.

[@jeanlaikan8400]

What about Boeing? Another crash of the 737 in South Korea yesterday. Shouldn't it's certification be removed?

[@raygan777able]

No worries. The domestic market itself is good enuf to cover the demands. At least China no longer need to rely on Boeing and Airbus

[@Pathfinder1932-t5d]

It’s still using western parts so that independence doesn’t really exist.

[@dylananddenlangaming1]

Now Singapore Airlines or Scoot wants China C919

[@muellj16]

Great video explaining the issues with the C919. Having worked in the commercial aerospace industry for the past 15+ years, another big issue that "western" airlines have with the C919 is the same issue they had with the Suhkoi Superjet 100, the support network is inadequate and dysfunctional.

[@Trainmaster909]

Chinese heavy industries are going to struggle to sell in the west. Looking at the rail sector, CRRC was unable to deliver rolling stock at the speed or quality necessary. Airlines are going to look at that and think twice. Chinese manufacturers will always put their domestic customers first and half-ass it for the west.

[@janosvass5628]

That is an assumption only. We don't know that until the aircraft is out there and actively flies.

[@oadka]

No its just non existent, but I'm quite sure china's focus for this airliner is not the west. Probably Iran/Russia are top targets for sale, then maybe Africa/South America. Still depends on EASA certification.

[@jonathanbuzzard1376]

@@oadka Still uses too many Western parts which are sanctioned for them to be able to sell to Iran/Russia.

[@bobsmith3983]

@@Trainmaster909 Nonsense. Look at the newly inaugurated Indonesian Chinese built HSR or the LAOS Chinese built HSR. The only reason sales in the West will be non existent is the West is protecting it's industries since the Chinese made rolling stock is superior in all aspects to western made ones. The USA can't even build HSR rolling stock. How's that California HSR going?

[@meofnz2320]

Comac don’t need to sell aircraft to external customers. The Chinese market on its own is massive.

[@marcmcreynolds2827]

It could help a bit with balance of trade, which until lately wasn't looking to ever be a concern for the PRC. At this point though, with very limited production for years to come, national prestige is about the only reason to sell outside the country.

[@kingrama2727]

Not that massive lol

[@marcmcreynolds2827]

@@kingrama2727 Massive enough that any airframe maker would want a piece of it. Mine was salivating over it forty years ago, when it was far less... whatever.

[@kingrama2727]

@@marcmcreynolds2827 cool story. America and Europe can just not certify the airplane to ever enter its airspace. China admitted early last year that it over counted its population and its less than 1 billion. China has one of the oldest populations on earth and their population is unbalanced thanks to the disastrous 1 child policy. Over half of China’s population still live in poverty. Corporations are fleeing China for better places to do business, chinas economy is almost as bad as America’s, it’s smoke and mirrors. Seems as though you fell for this fairytale though

[@LawasSarawak]

@@kingrama2727 boeing will be crying for

[@Freedomoverdose]

Well with such bad QA in Boeing, chinese ppl are glad that they have c919 not 737 max

[@magnustan841]

Not to mention, maintenance and support network that’s still yet to be developed and after sales support…. Also, good luck to those actively avoiding Boeings, they are flying everywhere. They do it for personal pride, I feel it’s not much better than Greenpeace.

[@NadeemAhmed-nv2br]

It uses the same parts

[@doujinflip]

After sales support is how Boeings stay aloft seemingly indefinitely, they're just willing to do whatever a customer asks for (particularly airfreighter conversions) to keep their birds in the air. One reason you never see an old Airbus flying is because they automatically decertify their planes after like 35 years even with perfect maintenance.

[@zhaokwong5544]

We will come back to this video after a decade and laugh just like every video predicting the crash of China economy over last 25 years.😂

[@karlp8484]

This has already aged well. China's economy HAS crashed, Do you follow the news?

[@frankl5765]

its economy has since stalled since Covid...

[@o.i.c.uvanish9169]

​@karlp8484 what news

[@Lmaofunye99]

Bro the jet didn’t even get certified? So until it gets certified we don’t know

[@whiskeykilo2h429]

Bro it’s stolen technology. GET IT. This is the same nation with social credit score. Poor score , no travel and no freedom. A human rights nightmare.

[@ablair37]

in china it has

[@DK-ev9dg]

Politics.

[@a55tech]

not only certified but in use, another one been in use for a few years already

[@achangyw]

Correct

[@colinspencer2205]

"No one wants it". Really? As of six months ago, more than 1000 have been sold. This article is filled with ignorant statements. Chinese technology has advanced rapidly, and as production levels grow, international acceptance will be grow in strength. Recently, Brunei placed an order. Americans continually underestimate Chinese capacity, and the Chinese continually embarrass their critics.

[@gartheking1]

This is the same shit westerners said about their cars.

[@crinolynneendymion8755]

Don't think that's a productive line of reasoning but go for it anyway...

[@balkanleopard9728]

@@crinolynneendymion8755 Succinct though! Western arrogance is inpenetrable.

[@holicanoli123]

Even if it’s great, no airline will touch a new plane without a robust parts network. In Mexico, Interjet had to cannibalize some of their own Sukhois just to keep others flying because they couldn’t get parts. Time will tell if they can do this domestically…

[@bobsmith3983]

There is no issue with production capacity for the C919 components made in China. Parts sourced outside China is a different story. Soon even the turbofan engines (CJ-1000A)will be sourced from China.

[@doujinflip]

Practically everything that makes the C919 more than a static display is sourced from outside China. If operating it as it is now is already a money suck, it will be even worse with the early edition Designed in China substitutes. And the debt load and economic trajectory of post-COVID China makes it unlikely that they'll reach break-even before more fundamental troubles to the Party appears.

[@goru426]

Coby, this may not age very well. C919 is their first try and it's very good.

[@chrishb7074]

I’d hesitate to call it a failure quite yet. Aside from the big domestic China routes, 3000 miles range reaches Pakistan, India, all of Indonesia, most of the interestingly mineral rich parts of Russia, Dubai at a stretch and in all, half the population of the world. That’s a pretty solid target market there. You can buy a lot of jet fuel to cover the shortfall in engine efficiency with the cash you save when you build the aircraft and then sell them to yourself, with finance from banks you also own. Adding experience and production capability along the way. I’d take it seriously already, their slow production may be from strategic development of robot construction that could leapfrog our CADCAM production technology.

[@tanjiehjia]

In all honesty, I'd have more trust flying with the C919 than any of Boeing's current products. Politics and finger pointing will be the only reason they won't succeed outside of Asia.

[@littlehippo5004]

That is insane. There are two C919s flying and its been barely a year. Boeings products have flown tens of billions of miles with no problem. I'm not saying the C919 isn't safe, I am saying it is irrational to make that comparison

[@KARMA-jr6uk]

He's Chinese so ofcourse he's gonna support there government owned company​@@littlehippo5004

[@nichendrix]

Sincerely, China is no stranger to manufacturing civilian commercial airliners, the Chinese aerospace industrial complex has been doing it for more than 70 years, initialy their production focused on licensed Soviet designs, later they started to work their own indigenous designs for its domestic market. What COMAC is doing is attempting to replicate the requirements of foreign airlines, passangers and certification agencies, to compete with them in the future. I think that the 10 aircrafts produced thus far, are prototypes used to hammer down the kinks necessary to obtain international certification. I think their goal of 140 planes per year by the turn of the decade is a very conservative goal, but it's to promise a lower production target and deliver above to expectations, than to promise great many things and fail to deliver. I think they would reach those figures a couple years earlier. In the end, they probably aren't expecting these planes to be their first big international hit, but as a learning step for it to gain the know how to design products with western standards in mind. Also don't dismiss the fact that COMAC's clients are all companies owned by the Chinese Government, that also owns COMAC, because the Chinese market is huge, and the number of current orders for this plane alone makes it a successful program, how many North and South American, European, Australian and Japanese designs were considered a commercial success with far less units sold than that? You may say that doesn't reflect its standing on the international markert, or among non-Chinese airlines, sure it really doesn't, but the government's money is as good as anyone else's. Both Airbus and Embraer started the same way, making planes for state owned airlines and/or the military, that eventually drew enough atention to the products they used to enter the market, that their next generation designs became hits on international sales. I think what COMAC is doing is more or less the same, but with a starting backlog of orders that neither Airbus, nor Embraer, could even dream about, when they were desining their first generation of products.

[@neilkurzman4907]

140 planes a year is not gonna fill their orderbook and you’re talking about that six years from now? At what point does the plane become obsolete and needs to be updated?

[@mlynto]

Thank you but no thank you. I have problem flying Boing planes let alone COMAC copies. Airbus rules.

[@WallyPark-m1e]

At 1.3 billion people and a country of 3350sq miles, China does not need to export. it's internally marjet should bec enough to make Boeing and Airbus shiver.

[@Winston10000]

Nobody wants it? The fact is you can't get it even if you want! 🤭🤭🤭

[@aisatourydiallo465]

25 years ago, Americans were making fun of Japanese Cars too..

[@mikedee8876]

The Japanese were selling respectable cars by 1980.....

[@quicksesh]

25 years ago Americans were building Japanese cars … you need to go back 50 years for your statement to hold up.

[@edc1569]

You do realises it’s 2024 right?

[@dizhang2250]

​@@quickseshBut American people were making fun of Japanese cars. It is true.

[@quicksesh]

@@dizhang2250 difference is that the Japanese were producing quality manufactured items before the Second World War so already had an expertise in manufacturing. After all the gold standard in quality management is called the TQM. The t is for Toyota. Whilst China keeps on blatantly ripping off the IP from other countries they will never address the problem of delivering high quality (and we are talking quality in an engineering sense) … it’s not that they couldn’t (after all they have the intellectual base) it is for some reason in house development has not been encouraged, the Central state just want quick results which means copying existing systems without knowing but if you don’t take the slow path to development you don’t understand the intricacies of a system.

[@AutismTakesOn]

I find it funny that you mentioned GallopAir's C919 order. Yes, it's a Brunei airline, BUT, if you look at its Wikipedia page, it's owned by a CHINESE businessman. So, while GallopAir is in Brunei, it's Chinese-owned. As for TransNusa, the Indonesian operator of the ARJ21, 49% of it is owned by CHINA Everbright Limited, so that airline is 49% Chinese owned. I know 51% of TransNusa is Indonesian-owned, but the point still stands. As for the OTHER foreign orders for the C919, being AerCap (20) and BOC Aviation (20), while both aren't Chinese-owned, they DO have offices IN CHINA. So.... Yeah..... Edit: I was just informed that "BOC" Aviation stands for "Bank of China" aviation, which, after research, I can confirm this, and thus the sole foreign-owned company that ordered the C919 is lessor AerCap (20), who has a location in China. As for the claims that the owner of GallopAir was actually Taiwanese-American... After looking him up, he owns an investment firm in Shaanxi, China, so he does indeed have an ulterior motive for buying the C919.

[@andrewwong2605]

So?... A Chinese can't own an airline?

[@AutismTakesOn]

@@andrewwong2605 Not.... The point... The point I'm making is that people get hyped about Comac orders for operators not located in China, only for many of these "foreign" airlines being either Chinese-owned or having operations in China, so it shouldn't be surprising that they're ordering Chinese planes.

[@AirbusA--si4kw]

BOC Aviation stands for Bank of China Aviation 😂 and TransNusa did say in an interview that they received financial aid from China’s Import and Export Bank for buying the ARJ21.

[@yiquny]

Nvidia was founded by a Chinese man. That does not mean Nvidia is a Chinese company.

[@ernestkj]

​@@yiqunyThat Chinese man is an American with Taiwanese roots.

[@Luke-qj5jn]

Boeing is the world's bigger serial killer.

[@kaitoshinichi]

China actually takes that cake with Covid 19

[@iandabbs4670]

RUBBISH. Tobacco kills more in a single week than ever ever died in aircraft accidents since the Wright brothers. as to flying things and death, mosquitoes killed hundreds of millions

[@lktan224]

Amen.

[@Pathfinder1932-t5d]

CCP bot.

[@Luke-qj5jn]

@@Pathfinder1932-t5d nope, just a regular European ;p

[@grandmasterdoge6997]

Contrary to this video's headline, the C919 has been very successful. There are presently 933 units on order with options for an additional 120. That equates to about 10 years worth of production already booked solid.

[@challox3840]

737 MAX has 1200 operational units and a backlog of 4700 orders. How many operational C919s are in service?

[@littlehippo5004]

there are literally only 2 in service. There are only orders because the government owns many airlines, and owns COMAC. Really not an impressive feat.

[@grandmasterdoge6997]

The C919 is a brand new model plane, so of course there aren't a lot in service, but almost 1,000 are on order. Compare that to all the serious trouble at Boeing right now. There is a new Boeing problem in the news every week. @@littlehippo5004

[@iandabbs4670]

er yes but who will want an out of date aircraft in 5 years time let alone in 10 years time The Boeing Airbus R&D does not stand still. Engine design and efficiency is moving ahead rapidly ..... Chinese quality control leaves a lot to be desired .... Boeing bosses insisted on ramped up production targets .....and look at the results ....

[@grandmasterdoge6997]

​@@iandabbs4670 Boeing has been embroiled in a competency crisis since 2018 when its 737 MAX fleet was grounded. Recent whistleblower disclosures and chaos regarding doors coming off mid-flight, engine fires, and structural issues mean Boeing is losing reputation rapidly. Boeing is actually dying as a brand.

[@KingBooks26]

Yep, everything from China is a disaster. I'm confused, if their industry is not good, why are the big companies moving production there !

[@handaxia1251]

Boeing 737 Max is certified, no? does it mean anything? I'll fly with comac c919 anyday. wider and spacious leg-room than boeing 737 Max.

[@GraniteInTheFace]

C919 got its first overseas customer. ❤🎉

[@iansrven3023]

You didn't mention pilot training. This is a major reason airlines rarely switch between Airbus & Boing and a large factor in the two 737 max incidents

[@BobHannent]

Absolutely, and also the supply chain. Any airline would need to have maintenance techs trained in the aircraft, as well as spare parts on the shelf to minimise downtime. If you chose Comac, you're doing that for the long run, not as an interim, unless it's a wet lease.

[@stabilo3170]

A large factor in 737 Max crashes? Why? Explain please?

[@JohnJones-k9d]

I assume you mean the factor that Boeing lied and covered up the need for training on the max, thereby causing the 2 crashes. We can never trust Boeing ever, we need to ban Boeing from selling any planes outside the USA ever.

[@ReiyICN]

@@stabilo3170 One of the reasons for installing the MCAS system on the Max was so that pilots certified for older 737s wouldn't need a whole lot of training for the Max, despite the plane handling much differently due to the larger engines and their adjusted placement on the wings. The idea was that MCAS would adjust for this difference automatically, so the plane would handle similar to older models, and the motivation was that removing the need for extra pilot training would make the Max much more attractive to airlines, (since training pilots is a really big expense for airlines). However, it was the malfunctioning of this MCAS system that eventually caused the two crashes. So I guess you could say that the pressure of accommodating airlines and their dislike for extra training costs played a role in the accidents.

[@stabilo3170]

@@ReiyICN "The pressure of accommodating airlines and their dislike for extra training costs played a role in the accidents." I totally disagree with the above statement. It is solely Boeing responsability to inform all operators about a major modifications in a flight control system (ATA27) requesting a specific training . Any financial considerations are to be disregarded. In this case Boeing hid the very existence of the MCAS to the flight crews leading to the first crash (Lion Air 610) and a second crash (Ethiopian 302) after providing an erroneous procedure to counter MCAS pitch down orders. This was purely criminal behaviour from Boeing. Not mentioning the yo-yo manoeuver in case of pitch trim runaway known also as "roller coaster" manoeuver still valid for all 737 types, here the FAA and the EASA are both guilty to maintain the "Type Certificate" for such dangeourous aircraft. The Grand-father rights they say ...

[@yeehaw9460]

Chinese are actually quite smart, building their own jet for themselves. Less reliant on others

[@Felipe-n3j]

C919 is new , so you don’t hav to worry about C919. They know what to do…😊😊😊😊😊😊

[@autarchprinceps]

Is the C919 even certified to be flown outside China? Last I heard at least not in the EU and the US. As long as it isn't, no serious airline would even look at it for a second.

[@Lmaofunye99]

It’s not even certified in China it’s in process

[@danielch6662]

The 5th, 8th, and 10th largest airline in the world are all Chinese. 1st, 2nd, and 4th are American. But it seems to me that there are a lot of customers still for COMAC. Only a quarter of global air passenger flights start or end in the US. 75% doesn't touch the US.

[@autarchprinceps]

@@danielch6662 And in which other markets is it certified? The only thing I can find, is that Brunei is concidering a certification, maybe late this year. Not much of a market. It's clear the Chinese government can just force domestic companies to operate it, sure, but having a commercial plane programm be profitable is hard enough, even if you are not restricted to a fraction of a small fraction of markets. Sure, China is communist. They can just decide its worth it to them to tank those losses indefinitively, but given the sorry state of the Chinese economy right now, that will hurt.

[@georgecaplin9075]

⁠@@danielch6662and what about the EU? The EU’s official website writes that there were 6.3 million commercial flights in the EU in 2023. Now, whether they mean within, incoming or outgoing, that’s still a lot of flights. Meanwhile, in 2019, (I know it’s not fair to compare different years, but those are the statistics I can find), there were 60k flights between China and the US. Again, apples and kumquats, but if we assume, (fairly), that flights between China and every other country are fewer than the China-US path, it doesn’t look good.

[@darkopavlic6592]

@@autarchprinceps in next few years they have more than 8000 orders only from china. boeing is peace of shit

[@robjulianmaghinang6406]

I wonder why the Embraier and Bombardier won't step in. I mean, they have decades of experience building planes. I am not saying that they can compete head-to-head with the two giants but if there will ever be a need for a third player, a more experienced company stands a better chance

[@Randomvideos-zi7pe]

their planes are regional and meant for very small airports

[@ThatGuyWayOverThere]

Bombardier is owned by airbus.

[@NorthStarDC4M]

@@ThatGuyWayOverThereno it isn’t, Bombardier sold the CSeries to Airbus, not the whole company (Bonbardier also sold the CRJ series to Mitsubishi), bombardier still is an independent company but they only build business jets now.

[@robertlheath]

Bombardier doesn´t have the capital needed and this is why they sold the C Series to Airbus who are working to optimize the program to scale it.

[@FameyFamous]

How do the seating capacities compare for the biggest Embraier vs the smallest Max and NEO?

[@joec3390]

I think Embraer should make an A320/737 competitor.

[@miguelflugelman3278]

It is now part of Boeing

[@williamhaynes7089]

@@miguelflugelman3278 - that deal never happened

[@bearcubdaycare]

Or even just an A220 competitor. Big potential market there, not too much bigger than their current offerings.

[@geoffreymartinez7208]

Their E-195 is a reliable regional jet. Embraer does manufacture intercontinental range business jets. Would be interesting to find out whether they can go into commercial long range

[@kolerick]

that's a huge investment to make to then hope to sell enough to be profitable... but given the scarcity problem right, there may be a window to enter this market... but it's not like they can developpe safely an aircraft in a short enough span of time to exploit this shortage before it begin to resolve (Airbus is improving their raw number and even Boeing will pull their head out their @$$ after a while)

[@samyliu]

It is interesting to hear that China has no expertise to build plane parts for C919. Would these plane parts harder than building space station? Don't forget that the international space station was built by multiple countries while the Chinese Space Station was solely built by China alone. You seems not being able to understand the purpose behind the selection of plane parts from barious countries.

[@marcelocc6087]

Wonder why Embraer does not move into this category of jets. They have been launching very successful program within budget, and timing.

[@nichendrix]

About a month ago Embraer’s CEO gave an interview to one Brazilian Aeronautics magazine, about the current situation with a massive increase in stock price and recommendations as a good investment from multiple international valuation companies and banks, obviously, the magazine was also covering Boeing's current predicament, and asked him and some other Embraer’s high ranking managers, about this, and in both articles the question about of Embraer would be moving to the larger narrow body market. All of them answered an emphatic "Not Yet", in their accessment, by the time they develop and certify a plane to be a real contender for the Airbus' A320 Neo, Boeing's 737 Max families, the current problems both companies are facing, like Boeing's quality issues and Airbus constrained production capacity due to excess backlog, should already be solved, and would be very hard to compete without a big advantage, so they would focus on developing their lines of Electric, Hybrid Electric, Hydrogen and Hydrogen Fuel Cell propulsion systems, because if they bring this innovation to market faster than Airbus and Boeing, the they would be able to compete with them on their full force, not based just on a short/media term situational advantage. Despite that, they say that between at most by the end of 2025, they will present the business case for a new plane to the Board of Directors. So, maybe it could be that, but probably not.

[@egg-h4b]

A lot of it is politics. Some companies are 'allowed' to survive only if they play within certain boundaries. Cross those boundaries, and Uncle Sam will write its obituary. Brazil does not have the politics and financial muscle to deal with American pressure games. China can.

[@wizardmix]

I agree. I work around EMBs and CRJs quite a bit, both really solid, reliable, comfortable aircraft, especially the EMB 175s (in the US). I'd love to see them develop a larger narrow body product or even wide body.

[@KevinSmithGeo]

They don't want to end up like Bombardier.

[@gilboman]

the US will kill it just like they did with the Bombardier (Canadian) C-series banning it and Bombardier sold it at a loss to Airbus who now markets it as the very popular A220

[@henk7356]

No One? Why are their order books full? 1000+ units sold already....

[@KARMA-jr6uk]

Only in china

[@naturalisedhker7953]

@@KARMA-jr6ukthey only want to provide for the Chinese market…

[@bigmungus4864]

@@KARMA-jr6ukso I guess if Boeing major order we’re only in the US it be a problem?

[@itsme-vw5yo]

​@@bigmungus4864 well as you can see neither Airbus or Boeing only sold in the us or EU. Fun fact Airbus dominated the Asia

[@GilbertoCalderon-l5p]

I would love to see these bird fly in the states. The way I see it competition is a healthy way of improving technology and let's be honest you can't discard someone's achievement just like that.

[@cnn787-i9e]

it doesn't matter who's buying the C919, for every C919 being sold, that's one less A320/737 being sold. Just give them another 20 years.

[@lachen7]

Comparing C919 as if it was already in the market for the last 20 years. Shows how strong the C919 is and how shaken this ill informed youtuber is. Now this youtuber is criticizing the low output numbers of the new aircraft, but soon the US will be screaming "overcapacity" of Comac 😂 aircrafts.

[@charleschin413]

For your info they already have 1200 orders mostly chinese airlines.Why not buy and fly your own instead of buying max that crashes?.

[@neilkurzman4907]

They have 1200 orders that they don’t have the capacity to fill. The plane has worse fuel mileage than airbus or Boeing. And they don’t have the parts system set up for spare parts. They have a long way to go.

[@LawasSarawak]

@@neilkurzman4907 Boeing destination - heaven

[@neilkurzman4907]

@@LawasSarawak 😂

[@vladilenkalatschev4915]

Absolutely ignorant video and same ignorance in comments under it. So typical for the Western audience who don’t understand that the time of the American and European success is going to its end and countries like PRC and India are able to deliver good products in different forms. First it doesn’t mean that Chinese airliners will replace Boeing and Airbus aircrafts completely but they will for sure make a strong competition on the Chinese domestic market and also on the market of developing countries. If someone looks at the history Japanese products it will be absolutely clear that they were not that successful at the beginning, same as products from ROK. but what is happening now? Where are all those American and European famous brands from 30s-80s? They are almost all disappeared and now we just see brands from Asia.

[@soccerguy2433]

Lol. What a nonsense post.

[@paulouellette4100]

china india 2 shithole contry...just able to steal intellectual property ....

[@vladilenkalatschev4915]

@@soccerguy2433 at least I am able to argue in comparison to you and I know what I am talking about

[@TechieWidget]

I think this video will aged poorly over the next 10 years. Recently, a small Brazilian airline has taken interest in the C919. Right now, Airbus and Boeing are too busy with their huge backlog and having trouble taking orders for their A321s and 737s. As a Canadian who is still bitter over what the US did to Bombardier's CS300 (now A220), I wish for C919 to succeed and create more competition in the global aviation market.

[@Jeff-sm8of]

The china market and the global south market is more than big enough to sustain comac for many years. Look that happened to the car industry.

[@victorteo4783]

Flying on Comac C919 is much safer than on a Boeing 737 Max.

[@geofftowle8970]

Based on what data? Almost a million people all over the world fly on a 737 every day! They're pretty damn safe.

[@TengisAviation12]

Fuck you, ur a horrible person. The 737 is a safe plane ur just a moron that is scared of flying, dumbass.

[@werneralmesberger3959]

I think the main reason why COMAC aren't selling the C919 is the risk of US-driven sanctions. With lots of foreign-made parts in the C919, including engines and avionics, it would make little sense for COMAC to ramp up production now, and put them and their customers at the mercy of Washington. Note that also non-US companies can be and have been forced by the US to limit sales and services to China, e.g., Dutch ASML for semiconductor production, or Taiwanese TSMC for actual chips. Meanwhile, another Chinese company, AECC/ACAE, is working on a new, China-made engine, the CJ-1000A. According to Wikipedia, they're flight-testing it now, but don't expect to deploy it before 2030. Which just happens to be when COMAC expect to start selling the C919. For now, Comac have all the time in the world to perfect their design, which includes replacing parts from foreign sources, and also to monitor how the few planes that are in commercial operation perform. And maybe they have a few ideas about making the design a little more efficient, too. By the way, COMAC also make a smaller aircraft, the MD-80-like ARJ21, which they do mass-produce, although in comparably small number. This means that they do have some experience with aircraft production, and don't have to start from zero.

[@qianmax4146]

I boarded a C919 from Shanghai to Chengdu recently. The overall experience was good enough. The final landing phase was smooth and the touchdown was gentle.

[@R-Cforeverfriends]

Brunei's buying it. Don't get me started on Boeing

[@connclissmann6514]

Until the C919 is certified to fly in US and European skies, it's all but useless to most of Boeing or Airbus customers.

[@jacksmith-mu3ee]

Yes bc only European and usa skies exist ..😂😂😂

[@connclissmann6514]

@@jacksmith-mu3ee Follow the volume sales of Airbus and Boeing and I suggest that is indeed not China.

[@jacksmith-mu3ee]

@@connclissmann6514 follow the faults and issues and again that's not china Try your racism bs somewhere else white boi Btw I am from florida

[@kenho-wr5ul2rh7m]

Australia, US and Europe are actually in the corners of aerial territories....... C919 could actually fly around freely in Africa, Middle-east, Asia, Southeast Asia freely and airlines from these regions are very interested in getting purchase order of C919 they didnt get it because its already over production capacity to just only server Chinese local orders

[@ladygracienyc2029]

Another video showcasing western ignorance. The main components of this jet are still mostly from western companies like GE and UTX. Not so different than Boeing or Airbus. The jet will be popular in China and the global south and will eat into Boeing and Airbus sales on the margin.

[@ALMacahilo-ct5su]

Another CCP bot how unfortunate yo ushould remove this comment so someone can have enough space

[@UCantSeeemeee]

​@@ALMacahilo-ct5suthen what are you 😂 English bot

[@RobertsDigital]

It doesnt matter if the C919 is less efficient What matters is that some countries like China and Russia are able to make their own passenger aircraft variants. Some countries cant even make an ordinary bicycle let alone an automobile or an aircraft. If China can build their own variants today. They could very well become 100% independent in the future and may very well surpass the west. Becoming self sufficient in all sectors of technology and infrastructure is a gradual process. Its better to build your own than not build anything at all. As long as it flies and does what it should do, it is an accomplishment. Airbus started in the 1970s and Boeing started shortly before the 1920s but who makes the most technologically advanced and safest passenger aircraft today? It's Airbus! So I think we should not underestimate COMAC for now. In the future they may become the leaders. Every time you laugh at China, they improve. That ability to make something that others have done, even if its at a primitive state is far better than not being able to make that same thing.

[@TheAlf61]

Not sure what you mean on the 1 C engine. It is 11:1 bypass same as the 1A and better than the 2B at 9:1. Not well explaned.

[@Bow-gh7cr]

Honesty i think now the c919 is safer than 737max😂😂

[@pauljmeyer1]

China is new to this industry and needs to develop its own technology. Reliability is their first concern rather than overall efficiency for the moment.

[@achangyw]

I concur.

[@yellowscott]

@@achangyw They will just steal the technology like they always do & have to for obvious reasons!!

[@larryt4884]

91% is built using parts from non-chinese suppliers. That is all you need to know.

[@jason980e]

but Boeing uses 70% of non-America suppliers, this is called an international supply chain. It's like you're living in the last century lol

[@larryt4884]

@@jason980e Except all machines and processes were invented mostly in America and can be brought back here, or to any other place of America's choice.

[@its_whack]

Politics is why. The us will never go for a Chinese built aircraft

[@jacksmith-mu3ee]

That's why usa lost

[@kenho-wr5ul2rh7m]

US evilizes China including the good part so US will progress very slow in this area while China is trying to learn everything from u that could let them progress

[@youwaiyap2708]

Hmm..... the gate-keepers e.g. FAA, FDA are working for the Capitalist biz corps who push $$$ at the expense of the minions (able to vote counts almost nothing?). Same as to why very good pharmaceutical products from Japan cannot get into the consumer mkt in the US 😱😱🤪🤪

[@achangyw]

Politics can change. Never say never!

[@challox3840]

@@achangyw US politics on this matter won't change before Chinese politics changes 💀

[@Bb13190]

And what about certification ? Is the plane certify to fly outside of China yet ?

[@supertouring1]

From what I read online, it is very costly and time consuming to certify planes. Supposedly, to certify for the FAA or EASA, i read that the plane has to complete 75 test flights, each testing a specific paramter/feature of the plane. The C919 has so far completed 7-9/75 required test flights. That said, if there is such a huge domestic demand (even if it was artificially created by the CCP), why bother to spend the time/money to certify this first gen plane to fly internationally? Might as well save the money until the 2nd gen is ready and certify that instead.

[@achangyw]

That can come later after a decade or so.

[@CaliGhoul]

I don’t see EU or USA ever certifying it.

[@Bb13190]

@CaliGhoul you must have a technical reason for not certifying an aircraft. So if the plane meets all the critea, they have to certify it.

[@kenbolder4688]

@@Bb13190 They have to do nothing. Not every nation is ruled by a chinese Xitler.

[@williambush7971]

What a massive mistake it was to allow Boeing to buy MD.

[@gentoffire]

It's silly to put a bait cliker like this. The Chinese market is so large and it's just already so profitably for all local airline to buy Comac instead of Boeing. Because these are the areas the Chinese felt they are being ripped off.

[@cooper1819]

As many mentioned China is already big enough market for starters, and next I would see global south countries, South East Asia, Africa and even South America starting to get them once COMAC get the licensing, at least to fly within the region and not to Europe & US.

[@pandabamboo656]

It is the best of it's kind

[@cameronlewis1218]

Some airlines might not want to be seen buying jets directly from the CCP…

[@bobsmith3983]

They can always buy them indirectly from the CPC.😀

[@LawasSarawak]

or Boeing max pain

[@patrickkhaw2547]

You are missing the point and out of date. Countries in the global south have bought and will buy COMAC aircraft.

[@vadskar64]

We all now see big problems with Boeing transparency related to safety, and it’s a private company. Now imagine the kind of transparency provided by owner of the COMAC, ie CPC. I think that’s the issue #1.

[@mlynto]

Exactly. Soviet Union used to have 2 or 3 commercial aircraft manufacturers that operated only domestically and nobody ever knew their safety record because of the total lack of communist transparency. If I remember correctly one of those manufacturers was presenting its airliner at the airshow in Malaysia couple of decades ago I believe and it crashed into the crowds. China is totalitarian communist country that does not report things they dont like such as safety record if it is bad.

[@LawasSarawak]

American standard

[@jaymehta0098]

It is not COMAC, it is COMIC.

[@downtomars6268]

The I is for India

[@anthonymullen9250]

Comic is a more appropriate name for this aircraft Chinese garbage

[@jimmychoo2421]

I would rather fly the C919 than the Boeing 737 max, at least it does not crash

[@petittoto7433]

Because it doesn't take off... About 390 max against 4 C919.

[@Macaktom1]

@@petittoto7433 and 2 of them crashed and killed 400 people because corporate greed...

[@mohwybar5832]

@@petittoto7433 theres like 1400 737max and 5 c919 in commercial service. But yeah

[@coordinator3039]

Problem is they are rare in the western world.

[@ninersnation3298]

The western clowns are like instant successes or failures. I’m like their expectations on Chinese are like a joke. I’m like these are big planes. Chinese plays a long game like lithium, EVs, ship buildings, high speed rails, etc. eventually these c919 will dominate the international market outside of the G7 market. C919 already getting rid of the general motor engine by using its own homegrown engines.

[@jeciel85]

Chinese bot. Just look at the quality of Chinese buildings.

[@AlejandroRodriguez-qk4ub]

@@jeciel85 western bot. Just look at the quality of american railways.

[@ninersnation3298]

@@jeciel85 the world is just not the wht G6 nations. these planes are for the G187 countries.

[@jetlife2]

Your comments about the LEAP-1C are incorrect. The LEAP-1C is every bit as efficient as the LEAP-1A and LEAP-1B. The core of the LEAP-1C is the same, part for part, as the LEAP-1A. It bears no relationship to the CFM56.

[@jimmychan.]

But it's indeed heavier and less efficient compared to 1-A and 1-B.

[@jetlife2]

It is not heavier. The published -1C weight includes the thrust reverser because it is part of the engine. The -1A and -1B weight do not report the reverser because it’s supplied by the airframer. The weights are equivalent. The efficiency is the same.

[@blacksunshine489]

No it is not as efficient, and it is 800 LBS heavier …….800 POUNDS HEAVIER!! and way less efficient. Because we all know they will steal any technology they can. “Chinese blueprint” So yes they get the Harbor Freight variant.

[@jetlife2]

@@blacksunshine489 See my comment above. It is not heavier. You can also see from the wikipedia page (which quotes the official data) that the efficiency (SFC) is the same. Not sure why people want to believe this version is worse, it is not. CFM produced the same engine as for Boeing and Airbus, adapted to fit the airplane.

[@blacksunshine489]

@@jetlife2 So you do know that you or I can edit Wikipedia info, it is an open information format. My company has quarterly Leap/MAX briefings with engineers from CFM, Boeing and in house engineers that do updates on the MAX and questions on other players in the industry. It is not the same engine being sold to Airbus/Boeing.

[@jandnoc]

I wouldn't write of china just yet... If their planes turn out to be reliable, fuel efficient and selling at a fair price, profit chasing companies would 1000% jump ship to "cut costs". 💁🏾‍♀️ Individual Americans may frown on Chinese made products, but corporations could care less.

[@stephenday1520]

What a stupid comment. The airlines will not by the craft because consumers will not fly in it

[@jandnoc]

@@stephenday1520 lol If people are willing to fly spirit airlines, they're definitely willing to fly in a chinese made plane. 🤣

[@stephenday1520]

That is ridiculous with no undersanding of consumer behaviour at all. I for instance would not fly on an aircraft made in china and would not use an airline that flew them. Might change my mind in 10 years based on the safety providence. But I don't think the outcome would be positive. And I am not American.

[@jandnoc]

@@stephenday1520 So if you yourself are not American, then how can you say what "Americans" would or would not do? 🤦🏾‍♀️ I get it, YOU would not feel comfortable flying on them, and that's fair. But it's pretty bold of you to assume the rest of the world would think exactly like you do.

[@neilkurzman4907]

No one knows how reliable they are yet. And they’re much less efficient apparently last generation equivalent.