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

Please consider supporting my work by joining my Patreon community:
www.patreon.com/cobyexplanes
Subscribe to my new channel, Coby Explores: @coby
Chapters:
Intro - 0:00
The C919's Backlog - 1:43
This Doesn't Make Sense... - 3:00
Problem #1 - 3:39
Problem #2 - 6:39
A Future Competitor - 8:13
Outro - 8:51
____________________________________________________________
The aviation world is calling out for change. For decades, Boeing and Airbus have functioned as a duopoly, controlling about 90% of the commercial aircraft market. But recently, we’re seen just how problematic that setup can be.
Specifically, Boeing’s recent woes have thrown the industry into chaos. Its safety and quality control issues have hurt its ability to build new planes. And try as they might, Airbus can’t scale its operation quick enough to cover for them. This has forced many airlines to throw out their strategic plans - unable to get their hands on new planes to help them grow.
Now more than ever, the industry needs a third option - a new player that can pick up the slack. But the thing is…that third option kinda already exists. COMAC - China’s homegrown airplane maker - has made it their mission to break the Boeing / Airbus duopoly. But candidly, most people don't even know they exist. And you can’t really blame them - very few carriers have bought their jets, and sales for their flagship C919 have been few and far between.
Now on the surface, this doesn’t seem to make any sense. After all, the C919 is a brand-new, clean-sheet narrowbody that competes head on with the 737 MAX and A320NEO. It’s exactly the kind of plane that airlines need right now. And yet, no one seems to want it. So, what gives? Why isn’t anyone buying the C919? Let me explain…
#boeing #airbus #737max #a320 #c919 #comac

[@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.

[@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..?

[@hakanevin8545]

@@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.

[@rudiklein]

Bad quality can no longer be an issue, Boeing is probably below COMAC's level.

[@AugustDH]

This is a deeply unserious comment.

[@MrBomuch]

bro

[@benjicool2808]

The dumbest comment ever

[@simonschneider5913]

the west is coping like mad and projecting its own issues on others. its like the soviet union in western europe. full of hubris, and clueless. but very aggressive and delusional.

[@RatinanLee]

I really want to agree but think again, I want statistics... haha. Anyway, anything China says can't be trusted.

[@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]

💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥🛻🛻🛻🛻🛻

[@d.b.cooper1]

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

[@user-mc2oc6jw9q]

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.

[@remmond3769]

@@tbirdboy I thought greed is good or did you Americans change that idea hypocritical lt again because.. China?

[@arthuralford]

There's a much larger reason for Comac's failure to get sales outside of China: politics. Comac is wholly owned by the Chinese government. Can you imagine if an airline like American or Delta put in an order for the C919? Politicians would go after those airlines for "supporting China" and not buying American or European. The US government already puts restrictions and tariffs on a wide variety of products from China; adding aircraft to that list and scoring political points isn't that difficult to believe. It doesn't matter how good or bad the C919 is, it's that it's made by a company owned by the Chinese government that makes it toxic

[@andrewdrone]

They're already banning Chinese drones, so...

[@Bobspineable]

How much of that is a facade because of so many products Americans use made in China. Even Boeing and Airbus aircraft have components from China. They will be supporting the Chinese either way.

[@brck888]

What's the difference between private and state-owned. Apple spied on German Chancellor Angela Merkel, so people won't buy iphones?

[@arrowplaneval]

Exactly^^ Doesn't matter how good it is. Its just like how certain Chinese products (phones etc) don't work in North America

[@huas5350]

The U.S. government does not control Boeing, Boeing controls the U.S. government 😂

[@freespeech8520]

Air China just ordered 100 C919s. Chinese market itself is able to make any industry thrive, like EV's.

[@achangyw]

Definitely.

[@mikkodoria4778]

thats what china wants you to believe, i feel sorry for you

[@user-cv2fg8gb5u]

Chinese business style is to make a bigger pastry by a losing cost to competitors. By means the users get addicted on it. either they manipulate the market and expels other competitors so they gain political power, or they are fund raising at the back to get a lot of dollars. CCP thinks market is a war to be conquered, like a cancer. so USA decided to impost stop selling on particular issues to maintain market fairness and boycott to their fund raising. Meanwhile Chinese thinks it is legal as whose bet bigger whose win.

[@kingrama2727]

lol it’s almost like you didn’t watch the video. The chines government owns the company that makes the planes, the chines government own the airlines that buy the planes. How do you “support” an industry when the government is paying to make the planes and then buying them lol… have you ever taken an economics class? This is learned in middle school as a terrible business model. It’s like you go out and buy a car frame, buy all the parts to rebuild the car and then buy the car from yourself…

[@freespeech8520]

@@kingrama2727 Do you know how market works? That's how capital flows. In your example, value's added through making cars and then cars are used in transportation. Air China is not buying C919s to put in storage. It's gonna make money by providing flights. It's just a matter of buying Boeing or C919s. Government provides incentives/loans at most. The U.S. government does the same all the time.

[@luispnrf]

"No one wants it..." Sure... 11 built, 5 operational, 738 ordered with 120 optional. For a brand new company (that aims to build 150 per year within 5 years) and first model that is not yet certified by EASA and FSA (that takes a lot of time!) those numbers are not bad. Name another starter company in any field that has 5 or 6 years prodution already sold.

[@shermc4587]

I ain’t riding one. -Xi

[@morbid747]

China's domestic market is big enough for Comac. Boeing and Airbus would lose a lot of potential future order.

[@stanleytanyitfoong]

@@morbid747 👍👍👍

[@cburruss9486]

Except all of the orders are for the Chinese airlines 😂😂😆

[@morbid747]

@@cburruss9486 Those Chinese Airlines would need about 8560 commercial aircraft in the next few decades , making it the largest commercial aircraft fleet in the entire Asia Pacific , according to Boeing and various sources. It's just hubris to belittle them..i have watcbed how China developed it's cars since the 1990's , from non existant to copying designs from Japan , Germany US and it's further innovation. Today , it's EV outcompeted others. Boeing and Airbus might have their own Nokia moment if they are complacent and take competition for granted.

[@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….

[@hakanevin8545]

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

[@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

[@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!!

[@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.

[@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

[@dabfan6924]

The A-300 was a failure until the launch of the B4-600 variant that first flew in 1983. The Eastern Airlines deal in 1977 saved the Airbus Company financially. (It did not save Eastern, however). Later referred to as the Airbus A-300-600, the B4-600 aircraft is the mother of all Airbus planes

[@dabfan6924]

One of the big advantages of doing a video on the C-919, Coby, is it racks up lots of comments from Chinese bot farms. Feels good, huh?

[@benjicool2808]

Seeing how terrible the transparency is toward air safety is in China, I think most regulators would not want to deal with a chinese manufacturer

[@achangyw]

Just like dealing with China Evs.

[@downtomars6268]

Air safety, train safety, ship safety, space launch safety, submarine safety, nuclear safety for China ranks amongst highest in the world, higher than America, Britain.

[@benjicool2808]

@@downtomars6268 naaah there is no transparency

[@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.

[@Jonathan-ki4iz]

I think the comac is a failure in the same way the A300 was a failure, it did not sell very well at the start, only getting some regional orders. We just have to wait some years and then we can call it a failure. And even if it doesn't sell very well, China has learned a lot from it.

[@ramr7051]

It won't be a failure because, even if it doesn't sell outside of China , it has already sold 800+ planes locally. That keeps business running no problem.

[@nntflow7058]

I have to disagree with you there. A300 was a revolutionary aircraft, widebody with twin engines. First of its kind. There's no competition on the market with such low fuel burn per passengers at that time. C919 isn't a revolutionary aircraft, it's just a copy of a more successful aircraft on the market designed with not up to date technologies. There are the NEOs, MAXes, A220 and E2 on the market.

[@TonboIV]

I don't trust Boeing at all, but I would trust a Chinese airplane even less. I won't even buy Chinese tires.

[@quicksesh]

I doubt it as China has cloned the technology but fails to develop .. it will become a dinosaur quicker than most - also it is struggling to get certified outside of certain Asian countries as it is poorly built even compared to Boeings worst days.

[@user-wy5ch2xc8z]

​@@nntflow7058 it has more modern avionics than the 787 max, it's supplier is the same as Boeing's but with some airbus components as well, educate yourself.

[@jerseymike4135]

I’d walk before I ever flew on a Chinese made death trap.

[@bensun5978]

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

[@julianchee2894]

Everybody said the same when Japanese cars first came out. Or even the A320. Give it a decade or two. Just look at their automotive, railway, and shipbuilding capabilities. Whatever your rebuttle is, the point is that China is catching up. It may be shitty now, but it’s catching up as history has shown.

[@carbonaddicted1379]

thats the point: a decade or two

[@jhmcd2]

70% of Chinese high-speed rail lines don't service high-speed rail and 20% aren't being used and have fallen into disrepair. Even the Chinese don't like buying Chinese cars. Right now the 919 is basically an American plane made in China. There are zero home grown systems.

[@julianchee2894]

@@carbonaddicted1379 agreed. It’s never safe to assume that China will always fail. The point is that they’re catching up, even though most of the systems are foreign.

[@nntflow7058]

BUT, japanese cars then was actually produced at lower price using the latest technology. So American car companies can't compete. For C919, there are actually cheaper alternatives with better tech at lower prices from 3 different companies.

[@Moonstone-Redux]

@@jhmcd2 Watch the Chinese electric car space though. BYD has been making huge strides in building electric cars that actually function as cars and they have been using their own technology for their batteries.

[@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.

[@josuad6890]

Not to mention that training for pilots for the new platform is going to cost everyone money as well. There's a reason airlines buy 737MAX in droves when it's released.

[@8000RPM.]

If you peel off the C919 sticker, will you see a Boeing emblem?

[@achangyw]

LOL Maybe some parts?

[@jorgipogi]

Wrong all the way. The aircraft has not been certified and may never be certified for fear of outpacing the duopoly.

[@Freedom_from_imp]

Eventually, when China is self-sufficient, they will reciprocate the favor by stopping the certification of airbus and Boeing airplane so they can protect COMAC in their domestic market. The way things are going right now, Boeing may be in chapter 7 bankruptcy by then. So they would only have to deny certification for airbus.

[@marcmcreynolds2827]

CAAC has a years-old signed agreement with the FAA for cross certification. CAAC has however publicly stated that they aren't going to invoke the agreement at this time. Why bother, when it will be a very long time before they can meet even a fraction of the demand for domestic utilization?

[@pummyy]

wont even pass certification first

[@marcmcreynolds2827]

@@pummyy I've had some involvement with airliner certifications, and don't know of any reason why it couldn't be certified in the West. The airframe came out quite heavy compared to Western designs, so they probably wouldn't run into any issues from the structural side of things. The fact that they are accumulating at least a minimal number of flight hours in revenue service beyond the flight test program could also smooth over certification issues. I once submitted an addendum after a minor but unconservative error was found in the original long-ago FAA certification report for a brake system. The FAA said "fine", in part because the parts had been in service for a long time with no unusual problems.

[@achangyw]

Naturally. Who would not? In the end Airbus for Europe, Boeing for USA , Comac for China, and the rest of the world enjoys the best offers.

[@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)

[@peterpeng6336]

Exactly the same comment about made in China cars 10 years ago. Look today. Underestimate China at your own demise.

[@kingrama2727]

lol what chinese cars? In 10 years China will probably collapse, their economy is almost as bad as America’s and is built on smoke and mirrors..

[@EGvids1]

They think that by criticizing China’s growth they will stop it 😅😅

[@kingrama2727]

@@EGvids1 but China is no longer growing. It has an aging population, many companies are moving out of China because the COVID plandemic showed how to reliant the world is on China, China has massive debt since it’s spent the last 20 years or so trying to play with the big dog of the yard, USA. Its economy is smoke and mirrors. C’mon guy there’s no need to hold water for the communist party of china

[@danparker8254]

If they are using it in their domestic market it will support the national economy of China.

[@kingrama2727]

@@danparker8254 lol …. Some of you have no idea how economies work. China is building the planes and then buying the planes. That is not economic growth my friend. That would be like you building a car from scratch and then buying the car from yourself….

[@thomasfarrow7053]

*Boeing's new company slogan: "Boeing, we get you there 99% of the time"*

[@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.

[@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.

[@kunti_putra]

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.

[@dabfan6924]

Look what happened to bombardier. Embraer is locked out of the US market by airline pilot scope pauses. They are unable to sell their larger planes in the US as a result. A newer plane might be as successful as the A-220 if 737 problems continue. At the same time no airline was very interested in that plane until after Bombardier had to sell their baby to Airbus for $1

[@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.

[@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.

[@zaffvideos5688]

Totally agree, is this another China bashing video? sound like it. This Guy needs to to his home work to see how many flights in Chinese domestic industry and how many passengers are flying per month. Domestic market three times of entire Domestic US aviation industry. Dirt cheap and hell of a better service. if you haven't tried personally, people should not comment.

[@kknn523]

It's mostly to boost China's domestic labor force. Also, to train more domestic engineers. They also want to be able to obtain planes if Airbus or Boeing was forced to not sell planes to China. 3 things. Improving the labor force. Improving domestic engineering talent. National security(secure source to obtain planes from).

[@wernerzikeli2305]

Sorry but they have around 900 booked planes to produce - how many 737 MAX has BOING in progress?

[@challox3840]

About 4700 in production and 1200 in service

[@ergindemir7366]

It can't be worse than Boeing. If they had lowered the quality standards to Boeing, they would produce 10 times more planes per year. But the most funny part is the "owned by government" statement. What about the other companies, are they fully private with no subsidy?

[@htschmerdtz4465]

You've conflated subsidy and government ownership; they are miles apart. How often have we seen government takeovers of business fail utterly? I can't count that high.

[@Mastermism]

No, it literally is OWNED by the Chinese government. And only sold to airlines that are owned by the government, too. It is ridiculous to compare Chinese totalitarian and vastly inhumane practices to those of the free countries. No one says a certain part of Airbus or Boeing does absolutely not belong to the respective governments but it definitely does not belong to them in the same sense that it does in China.

[@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.

[@tonysofla]

The 3 big Chinese airlines just ordered 100 each of the C919

[@dabfan6924]

Of the Big 3 only China Eastern has a firm order. China Southern won't touch it with a three meter pole. Eastern only ordered it after their pilot murdered all those people and embarrassed Chairman Xi

[@CaliGhoul]

That’s not saying much

[@EGvids1]

@@CaliGhoul of course it is saying much. It is saying COMAC will grow to become a gigant 10 years down the road.

[@kingrama2727]

Did you not watch the video? The chinese government own the planes, makes the planes and is buying the planes… that’s not a good business model dude

[@interstellaraviator6437]

In other words: Chinese government has scheduled 300 C919 for 3 of their airlines.

[@russellstyles5381]

They expect me to get on a Chinese airplane? And have it leave the ground? Are they mad?

[@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.😀

[@Choosewiselyeye]

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

[@monipenny408]

LOL you do realize there is a much larger market outside of G7 right?

[@DK-ev9dg]

Politics.

[@a55tech]

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

[@JenGM24]

Imagine being on a fly and that sht snaps in half..

[@DreamyCheshire-up9rf]

Ah... Boeing plane.

[@JenGM24]

@@DreamyCheshire-up9rf This one too💀

[@gnagyusa]

LOL. You ignored the massive elephant in the room: nobody outside of China will fly in an airplane made in China.

[@tymw3637]

I don't trust it with my life.

[@jacksmith-mu3ee]

​​@@tymw3637I trust it over boein😊g

[@jacksmith-mu3ee]

Is sold out cupcake😂

[@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.

[@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.

[@melanoma3523]

The '3rd option' would be Embraer, not Comac.

[@kevinc1200]

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

[@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?

[@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.

[@Choosewiselyeye]

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

[@eddiecharles6457]

C-919 means 91% foreign parts and 9% local parts. So much for the term "homegrown."

[@yellowscott]

You forgot a bit, C-919 means Crap, 91% foreign parts and 9% local parts. So much for the term "homegrown."

[@eyeonchina2023]

The biggest problem with the C919 besides certification is its not a long haul ready jet and has limited use in the American market.

[@jwsops]

they will never get certified by other countries... so i dont think they care of American market at all.

[@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.

[@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.

[@ForcefighterX2]

There's a difference in baking a cake according to recipe and creating a new recipe. So is the case with engineering: It is a difference whether China just builds what other foreign corporations tell them to, or whether they actually create a new design. They are efficient in the first, but totally incompetent in the second case. Just ask Xiaomi and their SU7 EV.

[@RyanDow-go1oh]

If I see one at me gate, I'm not going. It used to be they had to tell you on your ticket what equipment you'd be on. Not anymore. Good luck

[@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.

[@jeremypearson6852]

I think you’re jumping the gun here and not really doing a good job of explaining the real situation. Comac is not approved in the EU or US, so that cuts out a ton of potential customers. As others have commented, Honda was laughed at in the early days in the US, now they are well respected.

[@alphamalegold1]

What about Russia? Iran? Middle East? Southeast Asia? There are plenty of markets that will approve it but no airlines in those regions have bought it either. I think you’re jumping the gun and assuming the whole world is just the US and EU

[@pcleong123]

Russia, Iran, Middle Eastern countries, and China's airlines couldn't buy much or any for reasons like it isn't certified for international flight. I noticed alot of BS in this video and critics from Anti-China comments. All starters have teething problems, and China is able to overcome them little by little. It will definitely increase the availability of quality local parts for their planes. It's just a natural course.

[@Gemini73883]

Just you wait, just you wait. Fella

[@jacksmith-mu3ee]

No it doesn't m

[@tbirdboy]

Your right about how the West disregarded Honda decades ago. Now it has a sedan that is one of the bestselling in automotive history with Toyota right behind them. The distinction is the Japanese weren't stealing tech and intellectual property. They weren't hacking western commercial industry. None the big Japanese players did. In fact it was GM who approached Toyota in the mid 80's to learn the way of the “Kaizen” philosophy. These two opened a shuttered GM facility in Fremont, CA in a joint venture. No one is doing joint ventures with the Chinese at this scale. Tell us why?

[@bullmarket4u926]

All orders are from government related companies. No airlines outside of China will take the risk of flying it even if it was certified (which could be never!).

[@kevinishott1]

Do your research. They have orders outside of China. This video is just another dumb propaganda to bash on China

[@emont]

In this airline market, one day somebody will promote: for an extra cost we serve fresh coffee in a non-Boeing cabin.

[@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

[@derekschoots]

Bombardier is owned by airbus.

[@NorthStarDC4M]

@@derekschootsno 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?

[@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?

[@user-tt6il2up4o]

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 ...

[@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.

[@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?

[@dd44nnn]

Pretty obvious cause they don’t have many people who know about the planes and spare parts are only in China so no point in getting

[@danharold3087]

There is also an expensive support network that need to exist. It is not going to happen with a few planes a year.

[@dd44nnn]

@@danharold3087 yeag

[@stevenhorne5089]

Rotable spare parts would be a nightmare for anybody that knows what it's like to deal with China. They're also sketchy as shit.

[@emty9668]

Around 16-20 years ago teams of Chinese Engineers spent time on an exchange visit at the Airbus Factory in Broughton Chester. This was during the BAE tenure as a partner. The idea was to produce not only parts but entire aircraft in China. Isn't it strange that the Chinese bring an aircraft to the market that has the performance of the aircraft being produced at Airbus all those years ago. This was also the time Britain last had a left wing government who were trying to cozy up to the a Chinese.

[@Choosewiselyeye]

I see nothing more than an American trying to blame a plane that literally didn’t get certified 😂

[@joeysworldsewer]

China bot

[@spy_balloon]

​ @joeysworldsewer Western bot

[@tailsorange2872]

@@spy_balloon What's the difference between a Chinese Bot and a Western Bot? /s

[@spy_balloon]

​ @tailsorange2872 Start with C and W

[@user-tt6il2up4o]

@@joeysworldsewerdumb yank bot. Would rather fly comac than us made junk called Boeing.

[@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.

[@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.

[@elrobo3568]

I have been a jet aircraft mechanic for a lot of years and I heard that if you look on the bottom of the aircraft it says "made in China" Who would trust it? If China does not have the technology to design and build their own aircraft components what make us think they have the technology and expertise to build an entire aircraft?

[@Calebs_Aviation]

I think COMAC will be a lot like Airbus was in its early days. “A government run program that may sell a few dozen jets and then file for bankruptcy.” A former Boeing executive claimed that about Airbus in the mid 1970s and now look how far Airbus has come. By the mid to late 1980s Airbus was a MASSIVE SUCCESS & even helped break up the Boeing McDonell Douglas duopoly in the 80s and by the late 90s Airbus was a major player in the aviation industry and even helped lead to the demise and eventual bankruptcy of McDonell Douglas merging with Boeing in 1996. Perhaps COMAC 🇨🇳 will be the next “Airbus like startup” and eventually become a major player and maybe even lead to the demise & insolvency of Boeing. It seems very likely, especially since Boeing is experiencing many of the same problems that were associated with McDonell Douglas and its eventual bankruptcy. Poor quality control, a bad safety culture and lawsuits and litigations against the company about their lackluster safety and deaths of family members from a few fatal accidents! 😱 I believe the 737 MAX will be the DC-10 of Boeing and all the conditions line up for this and for Boeing’s eventual failure! ☠️

[@quicksesh]

Airbus actually built products but also developed concepts and technologies .. Comac are copying designs and insourcing prior generation tech to built their future product .. not really comparing the same things. Also the Elephant in the room is how much will the CCP really want to sink into Comac commercial division when it is struggling on other economic fronts ... a lot of companies are divesting assets in China and moving out to other locations, this is robbing them of foreign income and the ability to invest in money losing projects.

[@andyh5666]

In all fairness, the DC-10 was a great ride (once they sorted it - but yes, damage done).

[@youloulou6591]

In this case, pray for Airbus not to merge with Boeing having its management replaced by Boeing's one ^^

[@oadka]

@@youloulou6591 there's no need to even imagine such impossible scenarios

[@geoffreymartinez7208]

@@youloulou6591 If a merger goes that way, the Europeans will insist in running things.

[@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.

[@gdutfulkbhh7537]

I'm old enough to remember when China tried to copy a Boeing 707. That was the Shanghai Y-10.

[@u2ber888]

It's a matter of time if you want Chinese lucrative air travel market, the west will be subdue to provide certification reciprocally. Otherwise, western airlines will also be banned from entering China airspace for airworthiness reason.

[@yaoyichenvictoriasch7014]

There is a general stigma against Chinese products, including planes. To see how successful it is, we need to give it 10 years to see the results. And I, for one, am optimistic about COMAC

[@danharold3087]

I disagree. China with a few exceptions where the tech does not exist can produce any level of quality the buyer is willing to pay for. Importers know that people will buy inexpensive junk so the have china build junk and they import it. So much of most what we buy is well understood consumer grade that can be made in many countries. Humanoid robots may switch things out so that quality products will become the norm if the robots are priced low enough.

[@vladilenkalatschev4915]

@@danharold3087 but Boeing f…cked up even with such an experience

[@derekschoots]

Even chinese airlines prefer boeing and airbus. And developing a proper airline industry takes decades. China still can't build the engines they need, which are still build in the west.

[@soccerguy2433]

China did it for prestige. That's it. The CCP needs good propaganda

[@nntflow7058]

The stigma is true though. Most of their massive investments and projects doesn't actually make any morey. Like their Belt and Road initiatives, or their high speed rail. It's a symptoms of a rushed project.

[@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...

[@henryhawthorn8849]

What about the Russian passenger jets, Tupelov, Illushin, and Antonov? Do Russians sell their airplanes overseas, besides Cuba (to my knowledge)? I personally flew in the Cubana airline’s Illushin 62M, and back then in 1979, when I flew in that plane, was a very modern and competent jet able to fly non-stop between Moscow and Havana.

[@TigerUppercut.00]

When you put a bunch of foreign made parts together to make a plane.. it's really not a "Home grown" Chinese plane.. it's just "Made in China".. 😁😁

[@yeehaw9460]

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

[@rizzochuenringe669]

Chinese scrap, even worse than Boeing 737max.

[@crp5591]

Here is something I don't understand about the US airline industry (and I admit I lack the detailed knowledge about it): Our skies are overcrowded, our airports struggle to keep up with demand, and we have a shortage of smaller narrowbody jets like the 737 and A32x... So why don't the airlines switch to larger planes to carry more passengers and scale back schedules? Why not instead of 6 to 10 daily flights between the same destinations, cut that in half but fly larger capacity planes? That would alleviate the lack of slots at airports and reduce the number of planes an overworked ATC has to deal with.

[@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

[@kuoliu1978]

C919 just came online. There is still a very long way to go before COMAC can even lift up the production power. If you play order today it will take a few years to complete.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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 💀

[@jeremypearson6852]

China Southern Airlines has just ordered 100 C919’s. I’m wondering if this is because they really want it or that they want to give the business to a Chinese company? I’m sure they’ll get a nice discount.

[@dabfan6924]

The commitment is illusory, part of a mysterious Xi Jinping cult ceremony

[@ebrady8995]

I flew on the C919 from Chengdu to Shanghai in August 2023, as soon as the plane landed and parked, there was a swarm of engineers around the plane checking the body for any faults. COMAC are really in the testing stage with this plane model and are years away from any meaningful mass production IMHO

[@aaa-qp1oj]

Keep thinking comac as a failure.....but for chinese is it successful project they have 1000 orders from domestic market...western countries should not feel jealous

[@user-xu8ke4br1o]

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.

[@defeatSpace]

Even with these latest antics, I'd rather fly on a Boeing or Airbus than a comac 😨

[@hanyuchuang]

Success of COMAC doesn't depend on flying outside China. There are thousands of order in China alone to sustain COMAC development for decades.

[@FalconX88]

Why are airlines not buying the E2?

[@Randomvideos-zi7pe]

because of scope clause

[@FalconX88]

@@Randomvideos-zi7pe seems to be a US thing. Plenty of airlines outside the US...

[@MrSchwabentier]

@@FalconX88because it isn’t that good compared to other aircraft

[@FalconX88]

@@MrSchwabentier it's definitely better than the older Embraer planes the airlines use and it's not too far off an A220 in many use cases (while being mich cheaper). If you can't get your hand on other planes it does seem a reasonable option for short to medium haul.

[@MrSchwabentier]

@@FalconX88 but there isn’t that much demand for small planes anymore nowadays. Just look at the A320 family. While 20 years ago the A320 was the model popular variant, today it is the A321

[@stradivarioushardhiantz5179]

Even their airlines opted for Airbus & Boeing

[@truthful3777]

No.. Boeing 737 max not selling in China.. Nobody dare to fly in that plane.

[@kamsunleong6648]

Because they don't have their own until now. Comac already secured about a thousand orders from their local airlines.

[@Freedom_from_imp]

​@kamsunleong6648 that is a 1000 planes that airbus or Boeing won't be selling. It will probably be much more soon. At that point, the west will start sanctioning comac for "national security" reason. 😅

[@stabilo3170]

@@kamsunleong6648 These orders are from the chinese government who owns both, airlines and manufacturer ...

[@sennaha]

China's airlines aren't buying BA

[@littleshopofelectrons4014]

Just what we need; a passenger plane made from Chinesium.

[@benquach9139]

imagine if one went down in the couple of years

[@mythbusterthe6749]

1200 orders and yet this channel claimed nobody wants it. 😂😂😂

[@JAnx01]

The western journalists live in a self-imposed propaganda bubble and absolutely love concern-trolling China and Russia.

[@JAnx01]

The western journalists live in a self-imposed bubble and absolutely love concern-trolling China and Russia. The half-truths and blatant lies spun into an alternate reality are something else.

[@peterkotara]

The COMAC C919 airliner is not currently certified to fly outside of China.

[@Mayangone]

When China has built enough Comac C919, and if EASA and FAA refuse to certify it because of political consideration, China should ban Neo and 737 from China airspace. Like EU, US and Japan ban Russian planes from her airspace - and Russia retaliates. All the Western airlines have to take big detours.

[@seekingtruth1315]

No one wants it? Their product line is running 7/24 and COMAC is planning to expand their new product lines in Chengdu and Xian.

[@leo13.]

Like, really? 1980s aircraft compared with 2020s.. They just started dude.

[@williambush7971]

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

[@dabfan6924]

The mistake was the former MD CEO Mr. Stonecypher agreeing to a duopoly with Airbus so that Wall Street could loot Boeing like the oligarchs looted Soviet industry

[@josephstalin4202]

Comac received more than 1000 orders from Chinese domestic airlines. “nO ONe WAnTs iT”

[@DiegoRodriguess]

They are afraid 😅

[@JuanPerez-lu6ck]

He said only China wants It and It's true

[@AleksPTA]

​@@JuanPerez-lu6ckconsidering the size of that market, sprinkled with patriotism from sanctions and you can see long term success No one wants it because if you have it and the US sanctions comac, you are bankrupt, never forget that very real risk But if I have a choice, atm airbus is the best offering by far

[@gettothepoint2707]

How dumb r u exactly?

[@Muzakman37]

No entity that isn't subservient to the Chinese regime wants it. That is correct.

[@Leoandxin]

C919's "failure" pales in comparison to the Sukhoi Superjet and MC21 lol