I would invite them to the table just to keep the oligopolists honest.

That is a bonus. And should current geopolitical conditions still exist at that time, it will only be to keep Airbus from getting too complacent. As much as one can expect the French to not be, of course. My observation over many, many years is that the notion of imposter syndrome seems to not exist in France.

But as someone with experience in sales...all I ask for is a seat at the table. Once there, it's on me to close.

Delete

I can't wait for that to happen as I'm sure Doug Ford will be just as in favour of 'Chinese Spy Planes' as he is about 'Chinese Spy Cars' (people who live in Ontario should get the reference), so that would be some good theatre.

That said, I don't see Comac making a sale, let alone flying a plane, in NA for a long, long time. Adding a new OEM into the complex supply chain of a major airline is a HUGE task and the juice really has to be worth the squeeze.

If you take a peek at my last name (I do not hide behind a handle) you may notice it would indicate my ancestry is in fact French (as far as I have been able to trace it back) specifically to the early 1600s near Honfleur. History suggests that my people were likely criminals or so extremely impoverished that their only option was New France. Kind of wish they would have chosen somewhere warmer than Quebec, but alas... they did not consult me. And please don't feel like I'm isolating the French. My receptive self-acknowledgement (here and elsewhere) as a misanthrope suggests I feel the same about everyone, including myself. It's the entire species that is flawed.

Getting back on topic, I would say that, tendencies towards the Country of Origin not withstanding , my point still stands: Geopolitical tendencies will lead to less demand for Boeing products and thus Airbus will have less of a motivation to innovate, differentiate or be more competitive. Thus, less motivation to invest in a CS500, less motivation to improve the A320 family and less choice for airlines. Until a competitor emerges and I see that as Comac.

An awful lot of leaps in there...there is no shortage of demand for Boeing products, the issue is on their ability to execute to fulfill that demand which appears to be getting better by the month. You've many times said that Airbus doesn't innovate and has 'boring' products, meanwhile, they also have an order book a mile deep with wildly successful products in every segment. Please elaborate on what sort of 'innovation' you expect to see from Comac?

The Chinese have never been known as 'innovators', but rather are the knock-off kings ripping off the IP created by Companies in the West, South Korea, Japan, etc, and using cheap labour and a suspect regulatory environment to win on price. So please, tell us what great leaps forward you expect to be brought that will lead Airlines to take the HUGE leap of adding them to the fleet?

In particular, how do you think they fit into the AC world since the thread is supposed to be about discussing AC's Master Fleet Strategy, not a general opine on geo-politics, macro-economics, or whether one is or is not pre-disposed to liking the French.

Delete

Completely agree with you! I only have you by a year, so pretty sure I won't see one in my lifetime either.

Also of French heritage and I can say that has never entered into my evaluation of one aircraft, or one aircraft manufacturer over another. But then again, neither have notions of 'boring' or 'un-inspired' or 'lacking innovation'. For me, it's all about comfort and functionality; for the airline it's all about economics and matching to the route strategy, nothing more. As the French would say 'that's it, that's all', and as an extension, I certainly don't think Comac is 'all that and a bag of chips'.

Wait... you say "knock-off kings ripping off the IP created by Companies in the West". isn't this basically what Airbus has done? OK... Except for the A 380 of course.

My point is that AC will consider Comac in their Master Fleet strategy within the next 10 years. The geo-politics, macro-economics, and Airbus getting lazy because of those factors are my arguments for AC to consider Comac. I get it's not a popular opinion (and no...not being part of the popular opinion has never held me back).

Full disclosure, I do not dislike the French at all. Au contraire...I find them quite amusing. And yes...I have family that had lived in France and I have worked with and socialized with many people from France for may many years. I just recognize their idiosyncrasies and tend to point them out. And yes, I say the same things to their faces as I have posted here. Most French people who now live in Quebec tend to agree with me.

but you have no problem stepping on a Boeing jet?
I don't know about you, but no comac jets had fell from the sky.

It would be foolish for AC to not consider Comac if it has proven safety and operational metrics

I am so sad over the C series being sold for scraps to the Europeans. That's the difference between two countries, one think in decades while the other in a years. If only there were more support from domestic airlines like WestJet, maybe we could have an airplane manufacturer that rival comac, but it's too late now.

Umm... The same company that pioneered widebody twin and FBW in mainstream commercial jets... Sure, once could say the 767 is just a knock off A300 and 777 was a respond to the highly successful A330(TA9/TA11) design, they even copied the FBW!

It's all nonsense.

No doubts the Chinese leap frog everybody in EVs, and developed fantastic high-speed rail/trains system. However, commercial aviation is a completely different ball game, not remotely close in terms of complexity and regulatory requirements. I am not saying COMAC will never succeed, but not within most of our lifetime, and definitely not in the next 20 10 years.

China has been assembling Volkswagen since the 80s, it took them 40 years to start making decent cars to complete with the rest of the world (on a totally different philosophy, EV a lot less complex than ICE cars, and Chinese made ICE cars still absolutely sucked). Their High-speed trains are still largely iterations of designs based on their first generation JV and technology transfer of foreign trains. They don't have the same luxury assembling planes for Airbus.

COMAC on the same timeline is about SAIC in the late 90s making crappy clones of Western design with imported parts and stolen tooling from pervious JVs. ARJ is a knockoff DC-9/MD80 with horrendous economics and dispatch reliability, C919 is their first "domestically designed" plane but all key components are off the shelves western designs that offer zero advantages over A320 and 737, also lack aftermarket support.

Interjet and Cityjet can tell you a thing or two about how fantastic their Sukhoi Superjet were, buying them cheaply is one thing, operating them is not as easy as it sounds on paper.

Competition is great but I'm confident I will not be flying on AC's jet made by COMAC in my lifetime.

Delete

• A300 - first wide body twin jet (and began incorporating carbon fibre)
• A320 - first fly by wire commercial aircraft
• A330/340 - first basically common design to be able to use two or four engines depending on the customer's desired mission profile (at a time before ETOPS and very large high-powered engines could accomplish the mission)
• Pioneered common type rating
• Oh and then there was their aircraft called Concorde that was made by Airbus' predecessor companies

I guess he forgot about those little incremental improvements lol but when someone has their mind made up about something they often don't let the facts get in the way.

Airbus doesn't seem to get in their own way the same way that Boeing has and if they had a more reliable engine supply I expect their delivery numbers would be even higher which would give them an even larger share of the global install base.

Bolding mine.

Exactly... little incrimental improvements. I've always said they make good airplanes. Just mundane, boring and unispired. As for Concorde, interesting tidbit I learned a few moons ago. British Aerospace and Sud Aviation couldn't even agree on a UOM for design. The Brits used Imperial and the French used Metric. Every design sheet passed back and forth had to be converted (by hand using a slide rule). Imagine how much time, energy and risk of error could have been avoided had they been able to agree of such a fundamental issue? This is indeed the roots of Airbus and a great example of how having to make so many concessions lead to a product that appeases the most. It�s why most of todays cars all look, feel and sound the same. We are living in a world of meh�

Now, back on topic; GE has identified a new durability issue on the GE9X, though it is not expected to materially delay the EIS of the 777X. It sounds like engine manufacturers pushing the envelope is still one of the bigger issues for then next while.