5 ms·

China recently started building and delivering airplanes. It will be interesting to see if Boeing can actually compete with what is coming out of China over the

China recently started building and delivering airplanes. It will be interesting to see if Boeing can actually compete with what is coming out of China over the next few years: https://www.voanews.com/a/7528331.html https://www.voanews.com/a/7528331.html In the short-term, I imagine USA-based airlines will not be allowed to buy any airplanes from China: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-comac-military-exclusive-idUSKBN29J2HK/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-comac-military-... And perhaps they would not even be allowed to fly in our airspace. But if China decides that it wants to build planes at lower prices than Boeing (or Airbus), then I imagine they will. Their marketshare would grow elsewhere in the globe, reducing Boeing's sales. Can Boeing deal with that? Would the USA borrow China's playbook, and nationalize (or something similar) Boeing to keep it solvent?

TylerE 1y ago
The C919 isn’t even competitive with where Boeing was 20 or 30 years ago.
- UtopiaPunk 1y ago
  I'm admittedly very much not an expert in this area. But my post is less about the C919 specifically, and more about China's track record of developing manufacturing processes very rapidly such that they compete on the world market. Specifically I'm thinking of how China is suddenly exporting tons of EVs throughout the world at prices that USA/EU auto-makers can't really compete with. Over 50% of EVs sold in the world are Chinese (and none of those cars are allowed in the USA). If China decides they want to continue developing and building commercial airplanes, where will they be in 5-10 years? Where will Boeing be?
  - Thimothy 1y ago
    China "cheated" with EVs. They never managed to make a combustion engine that could hold a candle against western ones in terms of efficiency and reliability. Electric motors are waaay simpler. I doubt that the same will happen in commertial aircraft engines. If China catches up it will be through industrial spionage or very slow grinding, that will take many years.
    - maxglute 1y ago
      This isn't 2010 anymore. PRC more or less caught up in mainstream IC drive trains. They prioritized resources on diesel engines (heavy equipment) it's essentially on par with global leaders and leading in some applications. Gasoline engine at parity for mainstream since 5 years ago, all the major brands has domestic power trains that's basically parity for mass market consumer vehicles, i.e. not extreme highend performance oriented like motorsports, because by then they pivoted to EV, specially because it would be retarded to waste energy on last 5% for high performance gasoline engines, and real secret sauce / aka hard stuff was batteries. Commerical turbofan harder, but ultimately it boils down to TCO, where fuel efficiency "major" factor, major factor in that 10-15% less efficiency kills margins / ability to discout for current COMAC builds which uses many overpriced western components for certification. PRC switches to all domestic aviation stack (which they already have for military aviation, i.e. most of pieces there already), they can feasibly undercut/discount where PRC commercial aviation is competitive, it doesn't matter if CJ1000A is 15% less efficient than leading if upfront cost (+ favourable PRC financing) makes up for lifetime of less efficient fuel costs (cheaper TCO). But TBH civil aviation is not actually a "commercial" sector, it'a a strategic (geopolitical) sector, US will do everything it can to kill COMAC, or prevent global exports, i.e. no certification, sanction countries that buy COMAC etc.
      - Thimothy 1y ago
        Heavy diesel engines were dominated by the rest of the world in the 50s. Military aviation has no need for efficiency nor actual maintenance cost targets and thus, you have way more manufacturers of military than comertial engines. My point is more that these domains seem civilizationally Hard. Western companies are very far in the effort/results curve. Will the Chinese get there? I guess at some point, though I doubt there is any incentive for the ICE motors in particular.
maxglute 1y ago
COMAC can only compete (geopolical drama aside) if engine efficiency improves or fuel prices decreases. TLDR every bit of COMAC can be modern / tier1 (and most of it is), but at current aviation fuel prices, 10-15% efficiency gap in engines will save more money on fuel over airframe lifetime. C919 is basically a 2025 narrow with a 2015 engine, but that old engine alone makes it not economically viable in most markets AT current aviation fuel prices. COMAC makes a lot of sense for PRC economically, not giving a cent to boeing, can build out COMAC specific support across country easily, but it's still commercially not well priced. The caveate being COMAC is only expensive / has limited room to discount because it uses a lot of western components (for easy regulation/certification only). If PRC moves to a full soveign civil aviation stack, it would probably be very possible to price COMAC competitively, but that's more a medium/long term project. That's probably how it goes the way things are gonig, US probably not going to even certify/liimt where PRC planes can land to kneecap COMAC. PRC + RU can probably do some shenanigans like prevent US planes from flying over their airspace in retaliation and then it's a matter of how much divertion (extra fuel+travel costs) impact bottom line. At the end of the day geopolitics will determine how viable civil aviation projects are.
protocolture 1y ago
China is very good at subsidising development like this. Other commenters are rightly pointing out that they cannot currently compete with Boeing. But if you look at the way the chinese approached car manufacturing, 20 years ago, I wouldnt have even ridden in one, these days they are honestly fantastic. Its because they got the chance to make those really bad cars, that they were able to improve to where they are today. 20 years from now, its possible that the gap closes to the point that Boeing is displaced from everywhere but the US. Biggest issue I can see is that the US will try and weaponise national security against them. Much like how Cisco and Juniper fought to have Huawei and friends blacklisted in most western countries. Just as they become competitive, Boeing and Airbus might start screaming that the chinese planes have communist killswitches and that planes will fall out of the sky if theres a war with China.

TylerE 1y ago

The C919 isn’t even competitive with where Boeing was 20 or 30 years ago.

UtopiaPunk 1y ago
I'm admittedly very much not an expert in this area. But my post is less about the C919 specifically, and more about China's track record of developing manufacturing processes very rapidly such that they compete on the world market. Specifically I'm thinking of how China is suddenly exporting tons of EVs throughout the world at prices that USA/EU auto-makers can't really compete with. Over 50% of EVs sold in the world are Chinese (and none of those cars are allowed in the USA). If China decides they want to continue developing and building commercial airplanes, where will they be in 5-10 years? Where will Boeing be?
- Thimothy 1y ago
  China "cheated" with EVs. They never managed to make a combustion engine that could hold a candle against western ones in terms of efficiency and reliability. Electric motors are waaay simpler. I doubt that the same will happen in commertial aircraft engines. If China catches up it will be through industrial spionage or very slow grinding, that will take many years.
  - maxglute 1y ago
    This isn't 2010 anymore. PRC more or less caught up in mainstream IC drive trains. They prioritized resources on diesel engines (heavy equipment) it's essentially on par with global leaders and leading in some applications. Gasoline engine at parity for mainstream since 5 years ago, all the major brands has domestic power trains that's basically parity for mass market consumer vehicles, i.e. not extreme highend performance oriented like motorsports, because by then they pivoted to EV, specially because it would be retarded to waste energy on last 5% for high performance gasoline engines, and real secret sauce / aka hard stuff was batteries. Commerical turbofan harder, but ultimately it boils down to TCO, where fuel efficiency "major" factor, major factor in that 10-15% less efficiency kills margins / ability to discout for current COMAC builds which uses many overpriced western components for certification. PRC switches to all domestic aviation stack (which they already have for military aviation, i.e. most of pieces there already), they can feasibly undercut/discount where PRC commercial aviation is competitive, it doesn't matter if CJ1000A is 15% less efficient than leading if upfront cost (+ favourable PRC financing) makes up for lifetime of less efficient fuel costs (cheaper TCO). But TBH civil aviation is not actually a "commercial" sector, it'a a strategic (geopolitical) sector, US will do everything it can to kill COMAC, or prevent global exports, i.e. no certification, sanction countries that buy COMAC etc.
    - Thimothy 1y ago
      Heavy diesel engines were dominated by the rest of the world in the 50s. Military aviation has no need for efficiency nor actual maintenance cost targets and thus, you have way more manufacturers of military than comertial engines. My point is more that these domains seem civilizationally Hard. Western companies are very far in the effort/results curve. Will the Chinese get there? I guess at some point, though I doubt there is any incentive for the ICE motors in particular.

maxglute 1y ago

COMAC can only compete (geopolical drama aside) if engine efficiency improves or fuel prices decreases. TLDR every bit of COMAC can be modern / tier1 (and most of it is), but at current aviation fuel prices, 10-15% efficiency gap in engines will save more money on fuel over airframe lifetime. C919 is basically a 2025 narrow with a 2015 engine, but that old engine alone makes it not economically viable in most markets AT current aviation fuel prices. COMAC makes a lot of sense for PRC economically, not giving a cent to boeing, can build out COMAC specific support across country easily, but it's still commercially not well priced. The caveate being COMAC is only expensive / has limited room to discount because it uses a lot of western components (for easy regulation/certification only). If PRC moves to a full soveign civil aviation stack, it would probably be very possible to price COMAC competitively, but that's more a medium/long term project. That's probably how it goes the way things are gonig, US probably not going to even certify/liimt where PRC planes can land to kneecap COMAC. PRC + RU can probably do some shenanigans like prevent US planes from flying over their airspace in retaliation and then it's a matter of how much divertion (extra fuel+travel costs) impact bottom line. At the end of the day geopolitics will determine how viable civil aviation projects are.

protocolture 1y ago

China is very good at subsidising development like this. Other commenters are rightly pointing out that they cannot currently compete with Boeing. But if you look at the way the chinese approached car manufacturing, 20 years ago, I wouldnt have even ridden in one, these days they are honestly fantastic. Its because they got the chance to make those really bad cars, that they were able to improve to where they are today. 20 years from now, its possible that the gap closes to the point that Boeing is displaced from everywhere but the US. Biggest issue I can see is that the US will try and weaponise national security against them. Much like how Cisco and Juniper fought to have Huawei and friends blacklisted in most western countries. Just as they become competitive, Boeing and Airbus might start screaming that the chinese planes have communist killswitches and that planes will fall out of the sky if theres a war with China.