With the recent maiden commercial flight of the Chinese Comac C919, I do potentially see it as a threat to the duopoly of the 737 and A320.
I still prefer to fly with trusted brands, but I have been contemplating when I should consider flying with the C919. I would say if the fare is about 30% cheaper, that would be enough for me to choose the C919.
What do others think?
They stole from the very best aircraft carrier designers in the world and still struggled.
China
@Trance N Dance: They still fly Soyuz rockets with the Russians holding their hands the entire way. Soyuz are great proven rockets but come on even the Russians have moved onto Angara and extra heavy payload lift.
I agree, I recently saw news that their aircraft carrier had cracks on the surface because of low strength steel being used. Who knows what corruption was behind it…
Think you mean they stole the very best aircraft designs…..
Boeing staff call their main competition "Scairbus" .
Their B737's are a 60+ year design with a history of making more patches to it then the total engineering was in the first place.
Still they were quick to learn from the mistakes McDonnel Douglas made. US aircraft makers profited hugely from defence contracts.
Brasil has Embrear and supplies many cheap countries and has very few incidents.
Japan makes planes under the Mitsubishi brand.
Russia has 5 large aircraft makers although Putin made them working together.
Sweden makes Saab planes and Eurofigthers under the Grippen brand.
The largest model series ever built is believed to be the Cesna Caravan.
The US refused to teach China on how to build high altitude airports so France showed them and they use exclusivly Airbus A319 to land over 4000masl.
Both Russia and Embrear use 5km long airstrips on their factories so they can still land with bad brakes.
Boeing staff call their main competition "Scairbus" .
The funny part is, Boeing is now the 'scary' aircraft to be on, not Airbus.
Still they were quick to learn from the mistakes McDonnel Douglas made
Anyone who talks about Boeings history would say the opposite, MD was the start of the downfall for Boeing.
The US refused to teach China on how to build high altitude airports
Refused is a interesting word…… No country has to do anything they don't wish to.
@JimmyF: Interesting: China and Russia tried to modernise measuring units and fly in metric heights. The US opposed and got their way.
Tell me more about them MD "goodies" please.
'Think you mean they stole the very best aircraft designs…..'
Oh I don't know … there was that tennis player recently …
Where is the 'humans shouldn't fly' option?
.
captain, sum ting wong
so this is like an aliexpress boeing? sure count me in…cheaper is always better!
I thought boeing was like an aliexpress boeing?
It kind of is a mix and match of Airbus and Boeing designs…
A combination of what they could steal before caught and expelled.
I've only flown a handful of times in my life and the manufacturer or even the model of aircraft was never on my radar (pun intended), I'd probably end up flying on it and not even knowing.
I doubt any big airlines which come to Australia will buy it. It will probably be popular with local airlines in China, and poorer countries, which already operate things like the Sukhoi Superjet 100 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Superjet_100
Superjet was a joint venture with USA. Nothing wrong with it- pilots should not be distracted by VIP's and ladies and look at giant mountain racing toward them- Salatiga mountain disaster. It hit full tilt. The human remains were few. Most produced helicopters and jet fighters in the world- Russian have tiny mortality figures compared to production. None due to Asphyxia as per F35 vs Sukhoi Su 57.
And the worse air disaster remains- due to a typical dumb fckn Dutch- Canary Islands when KLM Flight 4805 initiated its takeoff run while Pan Am Flight 1736 was still on the runway- both 100% USA made Boeing 747's.
Sukhoi Superjet suffers the same issue as the Concorde- Americans hate competition. Exactly as the US tried to keep Airbus out when the A300 series was launched. Then the EU had brass balls and enacted an aircraft per aircraft boycott- US finally caving. As it always does.
The root cause of the Canary island disaster was a terrorist act shutting down the main airport and the relief airport run out of room and staff. Long chain of events and much has been learned from.
Dumber was the A380 idea, the ONLY model requiring a 60m tarmac whilst everything else is happy with 45m. With so much money they could have built a Concord Catapult in Brest France and another at Long Island New York to cross the Atlantic faster than the time goes. And spare money to have maglev's into the respective cities.
Never forever never ever. I've read reports from those who test flew J10 and J20 for their country's prospective acquisition. They would not wish them on their worst enemies. The worst Soviet lawn dart was far superior.
I still prefer to fly with trusted brands,
Boing is a trusted brand? You already forgot about 737 Max 😬
The difference is FTA and the relevant US safety boards is the investigations are open and transparent and with the co-operation of those nations transport safety bodies.
It would never occur with the Communists. They'd lose face. Chernobyl as prime example.
The Communists hate transparency, they will never admit even minor fault. The Chinese Communist Party still maintain that d-head Mao Zedong was "70% right, 30% wrong" (actual CCP quote) despite killing 60 times the alleged Nanking Massacre victims through starvation then damning millions more for his idiotic views on sparrows and starlings.
The difference is FTA and the relevant US safety boards is the investigations are open and transparent and with the co-operation of those nations transport safety bodies.
It would never occur with the Communists.
It doesn't matter where the plane is made, NTSB/CASA will investigate if something goes wrong.
For the OP's original question, would I fly on one, well if it's NTSB/CASA approved, YES. Then again 737 Max was approved as well,
But if I'm the CEO of Qantas, would I purchase them NO.
I would say if the fare is about 30% cheaper, that would be enough for me to choose the C919.
Depends on what risks you think the C919 has….. Even 30% cheaper on say $10k airfare, means you value your life at $3k?
I don't see the point of this poll. Cheaper doesn't mean shit, airlines are all about safety standards/reputation.
China got cheaper production/labour cost, which could reduce ticket prices. Even Elon admits that China makes better of his cars than the US.
Then you can talk about the Chinese government hiding things, which is nothing worst than Boing's cooperate greeds.
Boeing. "Boing" I'm pretty sure sells stuff on Alibaba. China has got cheap labour for a reason- it's not very well trained, quality and skills are abysmal and productivity is low. That's why China will never become a "middle market economy"it's doomed t sell cheap crap.
The average US worker has a productivity tens times higher than any communist drone. Hence the market- which the Communist love because they can print faked money using fake figures (CCP already admitted it's GDP figures are faked). China won't ever show the world its real economic figures, whereas every country in the WTO has a legal obligation to. Which means losing face- mian zi- when they screw up.
But the WTO and Chinese regular non compliance is pssing off more nations every day, another trap the US tricked greedy China into.
2025 War with China is on like Donkey Kong.
Ukraine was about weakening Russia but most US generals (the ones that count not lobbyists with screen time) understand it was a stupid gamble and has proven counter-productive- increasing Russian economic and military power.
airlines are all about safety standards/reputation
LOL Yes Boeing certainly cared about those things with the 737MAX…oh wait.
We could then go on about a lot of sub standard airlines that have poor safety standards and track records too. But we won't.
Then you can talk about the Chinese government
The funny thing is, you made my post about China, I didn't say a thing about China, I said it depends on what risks you think the C919 has. The same can be said for flying on the 737MAX as well..
The C919 is a brand new aircraft from a brand new company that hasn't had many flying hours. Nothing to do about being made in China as such.
Well the Communist spin will be: maybe you value your life insurance to your kids or something 30% higher, so you love your benefactors 30% more than those flying on well-engineered and designed aircraft with proven safety records and excellent investigation of their faults- most of which are human error.
I've driven their Chinese cars. It's a no from me.
Their R&D is 2nd to none (ripoff and duplicate)
If popular brands of US products have met many air misfortunes and yet people still fly with them , why not fly with C919. After all those Chinese engineers design this aircraft by using their own intelligence plus special knowledge they acquire from US, Russia and Eu. I will definitely fly with C919 given the opportunity.
Thanks for your cheer leading Chinese wu mao.
I would, but give it a few years
I feel sorry for the engineers, etc. First crash and they'll all be locked up for corruption.
Locked up, and organs removed in live vivisections to be sold on the organ market in Singapore.
You are worrying unnecessarily. When this will happen? Knowing first what what would happen ( as you predict) to them, certainly they would take very serious and extreme considerations and steps and whatever they are for safety reasons ( to male a perfect one) when they design and make those aircrafts.
rought numbers without going through a bunch of sources, by my thoughts can be summed up below.
Airbus accidents since 2000 = 33
Boeing accidents since 2000 = 101
Comac accidents since 2000 = 0
when i look at those numbers 1 company looks much safer than the others, I think i will preferentially be flying comac when possible.
You need to express safety with lives lost per million transport hours. Also it pilot error or faulty hardware.
Trains are the safest, then ships, planes and very last road traffic!
True but it's 50/50 either the aircraft crashes or it doesn't
i wouldnt fly it
when picking flights assuming all things are equal the only thing i care about is 'price'
the only thing that usually deters me from the cheapest deal is if there is long lay overs - or lay overs in shit house airports ie i wouldnt ever stop at brunei again but somewhere like Singapore id be more willing to wait a while
if i was to try avoid carrier it would be Qantas [Alan Woke/fire everyone-Joyce- turn me off them]
Sure but they need to fly Xi Jing ping first in that then I know its safe for me to use that
Like any new model/brand, I'll be happy sitting on the sidelines for a few years (or decades) and see what happens. If this means I pay a few dollars extra flying in something more 'known', I'll be OK with that.
As much as no one wants to see plane crashes, the aftermath of a serious incident (or two) and how it is handled will inform us a lot about how much engineering, production and maintenance standards go into it.
No way…Don't want to die before time.
I'd fly it. They stole from the very best aircraft designers in the world.