(1) Similarly to all aspects surrounding COMAC's C919, the FAA approval is more likely an issue of when vs an issue of whether or not. I believe it's just a matter of time until the one of the western aviation authorites (FAA or EASA) will provide it's airworthiness approval to COMAC as long as it manages to obtain a type certificate from the Civil Aviation Administration of China. There are reports that claim the CAAC is actually a lot tougher on its manufacturers than the FAA is in America (Perrett, 2013). However, the FAA has its doubts about CAAC based on COMAC's earlier aviation expeditions, the ARJ21. Now that the ARJ21 has finished its certification process (6 years late), as long as the jet itself doesn't kill anyone, the FAA might start to recognize the legitimacy of the CAAC. That process, or rather its timeline, would have potential to end the C919 if it were banking singularly on international sales. The Chinese aviation market has potential by itself to use up to 1,000 C919's in several of its own airlines. Between that and the government backing, COMAC might stay around long enough for the C919 to prove itself as an efficient competitor to the A320, if not the B737, and could have some financial demand coming from other European customers, leading to western certification and potentially FAA certification as well.
(2)The biggest issue for carriers in the US would be establishing a training pipeline that is certified by the FAA. If that would cost to much, they could just outsource it to China! With some translation issues and language barriers, it could be cheaper to send US pilots abroad for the training program that was established by and certified in China. The quality of pilots shouldn't decline, considering most of them selected for that position should've been raised under the FAA's guise in the private pilot, commercial pilot, and initial 121 or 135 operation phases. As far as purchasing aircraft, the FAA's decision on whether or not to certify (or allow CAAC certification) is the biggest hindrance. From a public relation standpoint, the aviation bloggers at CNN say "we will fly on the C919 as soon as it becomes China's 'Air Force One'" (Jiang, 2015). There was skepticism in the beginning when COMAC announced plans to use composites on an airliner, the first of this capacity to ever do so. The criticism was fueled further when they rejected the initial batch of composite material because it failed to meet the requirements set by the engineers. Furthermore, other Chinese airliners have been called "death traps" by western press (Leighton, 2015). I think its safe to say that from a public perception standpoint, the Chinese are taking on a monstrous endeavor, putting it lightly. For US carriers, that monster is even greater because its their media and their regular customers that are making the negative noise surrounding this project. Lastly, US carriers would be taking a small jab in the direction of Boeing's face if they were to begin purchasing these jets, another monster in the industry that could have an influence on the flying public as well.
(3)COMAC has a great relationship with its airlines because the Chinese aviation market is growing extremely rapidly. The Chinese recently committed to purchasing $38 billion in Boeing aircraft, and another $17 billion in Airbus aircraft to try to meet its flying demands. COMAC is also a division of the Chinese government, specifically Avic, which builds Airbus wings to the French company's high appreciation (Perrett, 2013). Furthermore, COMAC is a section of the Chinese government that is actively trying to assert itself as a technological powerhouse (Perrett, 2013). With their booming economy, the financial backing won't ever go away, even if the C919 is a long run flop. This brings us to the future of COMAC, the C929 and C939. These are twin engine, twin aisle, widebody aircraft that are supposed to seat 300 and 400 people each. With the delays and focus on the C919 (and how long it's been delayed), there is no time frame set on even developing these aircraft. COMAC's Russian counterpart, UAC, claims that they'll have these two aircraft in service by 2025, but there aren't many other details available yet (Flottau, 2015).
(4) I think other companies would choose not to get into the love triangle between Boeing, Airbus, and hypothetically COMAC. The struggle that COMAC is going through and the growing pains it is encountering would be impossible to overcome without the Chinese booming economy and seemingly endless government support. Further, without an intense gain in technology and materials, it's going to be more and more difficult to squeeze efficiency out of an aircraft in the same categories that the Airbus and Boeing aircraft have the current duopoly on (like the 777 and the A350). Even the C919 has enough external parts and pieces that its hard to say that it will be as efficient as COMAC claims, since it runs the same engine as the A320 (CFM 56) with an American fuel system (Jiang, 2015).
(5)The struggles of COMAC have Boeing adding dollars to their own portfolios in the years to come already. In June, Boeing updated its 20 year forecast for aircraft sales by approximately 12-20 billion dollars above its earlier expectations (Reed, 2015). With Airbus and Boeing splitting the widebody market at almost exactly 50-50, and only a 2.2 percent increase in domestic air travel over the next few years, the biggest buyer of Boeing aircraft is going to be the Chinese aviation industry. They made these predictions shortly after another delay in the manufacturing process of the C919. I haven't found much from Airbus, but one of their officials say they couldn't see the C919 entering service in China until 2020, basically meaning that it's not something they have on their radar as an upcoming issue at all.
References:
Flottau, J. (2015, June 16). UAC, Comac To Define Widebody Aircraft By September. Retrieved
November 7, 2015, from http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show-2015/uac-comac-define-
widebody-aircraft-september
Jiang, S. (2015, November 2). China takes on Boeing, Airbus with new passenger jet - CNN.com.
Retrieved November 7, 2015, from http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/02/asia/china-new-c919-
passenger-jet/
Leighton, B. (2015, March 18). A Closer Look at the Comac C919 - Why Does it Exist? -
AirlineReporter. Retrieved November 7, 2015, from http://www.airlinereporter.com/2015/03/
closer-look-comac-c919-exist/
Perrett, B. (2013, December 16). C919 May Be Largely Limited To Chinese Market. Retrieved
November 7, 2015, from http://aviationweek.com/awin/c919-may-be-largely-limited-chinese-
market
Reed, D. (2015, June 12). Thanks, China: Boeing Gleefully Increases Forecast For Jetliner Sales To
$5.6 Trillion. Retrieved November 7, 2015, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielreed/
2015/06/12/thanks-china-boeing-gleefully-increases-forecast-for-jetliner-sales-to-5-6-trillion/
I wouldn’t be surprised if the FAA were slow walking certification on the C919 for more than just a few reasons. Might also have something to do with the $500 Billion dollars in trade imbalance with China, and purchasing our aircraft was the only thing that kept it from being completely one-sided.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I believe you were mistaken your blog is definitely longer then mine this week. Secondly you did make a good point about potential problems that may arise if the FAA certified the C919. I never even thought about training programs that would have to implemented. But thought of having U.S. pilots go China to get their training on the Chinese aircraft just does not seem right to me. Normally other countries send their pilot to the U.S. for training but if the C919 were to get certified than this would be one option to get pilots certified on the aircraft.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you on the first point you made, I believe that it's a matter of time before COMAC's C919 becomes certified by the FAA. When it finicky receives it's certification I believe that the C919 will attract the attention of smaller Asian airlines as well as airlines through out Africa and South America.
Delete