News Forum - Boeing’s China syndrome, big problems for the US aircraft manufacturer

[Thaiger]

China Eastern Airlines has grounded its fleet of Boeing 737-800s – some 108 planes in the China Eastern fleet along with another 117 planes it flies with subsidiary airlines. That’s a lot of planes, in either the first or second largest aviation market in the world, depending how you measure it. Number of passengers on airlines worldwide in 2020, by registration country (in millions)… GRAPH: statista.com Last week a China Eastern Airlines, which operated the crashed Boeing 737, killing all 132 on board, left the world’s second largest commercial jet manufacturer with even more headaches. At this stage we don’t know […]

The story Boeing’s China syndrome, big problems for the US aircraft manufacturer as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Ramanathan.P]

It is good for China to have a trade with Europe as it is one of China's biggest market. Just forget about US as they keep on flip flopping their policies like their Presidents every 4 years once.

[Saunk]

We've come to expect grammatical mistakes in Thaiger articles, but you know it's bad when Tim's articles also include a plethora of grammatical mistakes.

Proofreading must be some sort of lost art.

[Cathat]

boeing and airbus are both naive if they genuinely believe their pie in the sky future market predictions.

the chinese are masters at reverse engineering any product, improving on it then manufacturing and selling it at a far lower price.

they also have the technology home developed to put satellites and people in space already anyway.

why do they think that the chinese will keep buying their overpriced spam cans to transport the public from a to b when they can easily knock up their own for a song. 

the ludicrous future market predictions are to try to talk the share price up only and anybody who believes it will probably be interested in a very nice bridge I have for sale also.

 

 

[Fanta]

8 hours ago, Saunk said:

Proofreading must be some sort of lost art.

Thankfully the Grammar Police are still out in force to keep us safe or all would be lost. 

Boeing and Airbus have a nice duopoly going for the time being. China and Russia are jointly making their own commercial airliner so I know who China, Russia, India etc will be buying from and it won’t be Boeing or Airbus. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRAIC_CR929

 

[KaptainRob]

2 hours ago, Fanta said:

Boeing and Airbus have a nice duopoly going for the time being. China and Russia are jointly making their own commercial airliner so I know who China, Russia, India etc will be buying from and it won’t be Boeing or Airbus. 

Boeing may be too big to fail but it will suffer far fewer aircraft sales as a result of negligent management and loss of consumer confidence.  Airbus on the other hand, having noted how tall poppy syndrome leads to failure, should have audited their entire company and all systems to avoid a similar fate.

COMAC is an interesting story.  Almost a carbon copy of the A320, the Chinese had Airbus teach them how to build an airframe over several decades of manufacturing in Tianjin.  However, all major equipment, engines, instruments and flight systems are of Western design and supply.  Mainly US, French, and German.

I find it somewhat strange (other than the greed factor) that Western companies were so quick to set up manufacturing plants for high tech equipment in China when it was quite obvious the Chinese would ultimately copy their product.

An acquaintance from Australia moved his specialised R&D and manufacturing of high tensile alloy steel components to China approx 10 years ago on the promise of funding which had been denied by Australia.  Some of his expertise was in the testing of aircraft components like landing gear struts, axles etc for extreme temperature/heavy load use.  The deal involved training the Chinese how to eventually take control of the business upon expiry of his tenure.   

They aren't all stupid, long term goals are met thru long term planning, not short term profit.

[Ramanathan.P]

13 hours ago, Saunk said:

We've come to expect grammatical mistakes in Thaiger articles, but you know it's bad when Tim's articles also include a plethora of grammatical mistakes.

Proofreading must be some sort of lost art.

Well, talking about proof reading in Thaiger is something which they cannot accept. There are many such blunders that they have done in the past. But it all doesn't make any difference for them. As they are not serious about viewer's concerns. It is quantity over quality....

[Soidog]

13 hours ago, Cathat said:

the chinese are masters at reverse engineering any product, improving on it then manufacturing and selling it at a far lower price

Is that the definition of intellectual property theft? 

[Soidog]

13 hours ago, Cathat said:

they also have the technology home developed to put satellites and people in space already anyway.

So did the Russians in 1957. How is their aircraft industry fairing these days? 

[Poolie]

China, as we know it, is only 40 years old.

[Guevara]

9 hours ago, Fanta said:

Thankfully the Grammar Police are still out in force to keep us safe or all would be lost. 

Boeing and Airbus have a nice duopoly going for the time being. China and Russia are jointly making their own commercial airliner so I know who China, Russia, India etc will be buying from and it won’t be Boeing or Airbus. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRAIC_CR929

Russia don't exactly have a very good track record when it comes to commercial aircraft. Military yes, commercial, never. As for China, I wouldn't fly any of Chinas airlines let alone something built by them. It's likely to be the same quality as the rest of their 'knock off' products. Where are they going to sell them? e bay?

[palooka]

15 hours ago, Cathat said:

the chinese are masters at reverse engineering any product, improving on it then manufacturing and selling it at a far lower price.

Everything that I've ever bought that was Chinese reverse engineered broke soon after purchase. 

They do not use quality materials, that's how they sell it cheap.

[KaptainRob]

A few innocuous and/or off-topic posts removed.

[Cathat]

2 hours ago, Guevara said:

Russia don't exactly have a very good track record when it comes to commercial aircraft. Military yes, commercial, never. As for China, I wouldn't fly any of Chinas airlines let alone something built by them. It's likely to be the same quality as the rest of their 'knock off' products. Where are they going to sell them? e bay?

If you check the source of origin of the components or in many cases the entire finished product of many well known western branded products you may be in for a suprise.

russian airliners were built primarily as military transports and secondary as public transport aircraft.they were built with very different objectives in mind.

They can be operated off tundra and grass fields and can be serviced in the open air by technicians with skills slightly above push bike mechanics.try that with a shiny boeing or airbus.

russian aerodynamics are well in advance of us or european designs however avionics and engine design is a bit behind at this point in time but not much.

[Guevara]

4 minutes ago, Cathat said:

If you check the source of origin of the components or in many cases the entire finished product of many well known western branded products you may be in for a suprise.

russian airliners were built primarily as military transports and secondary as public transport aircraft.they were built with very different objectives in mind.

They can be operated off tundra and grass fields and can be serviced in the open air by technicians with skills slightly above push bike mechanics.try that with a shiny boeing or airbus.

russian aerodynamics are well in advance of us or european designs however avionics and engine design is a bit behind at this point in time but not much.

AsI said, military advanced. Remember Concordski?

[Rookiescot]

19 hours ago, Cathat said:

boeing and airbus are both naive if they genuinely believe their pie in the sky future market predictions.

the chinese are masters at reverse engineering any product, improving on it then manufacturing and selling it at a far lower price.

they also have the technology home developed to put satellites and people in space already anyway.

why do they think that the chinese will keep buying their overpriced spam cans to transport the public from a to b when they can easily knock up their own for a song. 

the ludicrous future market predictions are to try to talk the share price up only and anybody who believes it will probably be interested in a very nice bridge I have for sale also.

When have they ever improved anything? Yes they reverse engineer and then build a copy but do so using inferior quality materials far more likely to fail. Of course it is far cheaper.

Now would you be happy to get on a plane powered by Whoflungdung Engineering Inc or one powered by Rolls Royce?

[Rookiescot]

15 minutes ago, Cathat said:

russian aerodynamics are well in advance of us or european designs however avionics and engine design is a bit behind at this point in time but not much.

How on earth is Russian aerodynamics well in advance of western countries?

Do please provide evidence for this bold claim. 

[Rookiescot]

7 hours ago, Ramanathan.P said:

There are many such blunders that they have done in the past.

Sorry what were you saying about grammar? 

[Cathat]

3 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

How on earth is Russian aerodynamics well in advance of western countries?

Do please provide evidence for this bold claim. 

Read up on sukhoi,go to the technical forums on pprune, talk to a licensed airframes engineer or somebody who holds a PhD in aerodynamics.

Then you will be able to make an informed opinion.

[Rookiescot]

Just now, Cathat said:

Read up on sukhoi,go to the technical forums on pprune, talk to a licensed airframes engineer or somebody who holds a PhD in aerodynamics.

Then you will be able to make an informed opinion.

Right so no evidence then.

[Cathat]

22 minutes ago, Guevara said:

AsI said, military advanced. Remember Concordski?

Yes,and I also remember Concorde,both were commercial and technical failures.

[Rookiescot]

21 minutes ago, Cathat said:

Yes,and I also remember Concorde,both were commercial and technical failures.

Concord suffered one aircraft loss in 27 years of service and that was caused by running over a piece of debris left on the runway by a Boeing aircraft which took off right in front of it.

It was not a technical failure.

Concords commercial failure was due to the refusal of countries to allow it to travel supersonic within its airspace. Even though military jets do it on a daily basis. Often at far lower levels than Concorde flew.

Still when you compare it to the deathtrap that Concordski was its night and day. 

[Guevara]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

When have they ever improved anything? Yes they reverse engineer and then build a copy but do so using inferior quality materials far more likely to fail. Of course it is far cheaper.

Now would you be happy to get on a plane powered by Whoflungdung Engineering Inc or one powered by Rolls Royce?

Nothing wrong with Whoflungdung engines. You get a whole 7 day warranty.

[Guevara]

58 minutes ago, Cathat said:

Yes,and I also remember Concorde,both were commercial and technical failures.

Are you having a laugh? Concorde had one fatal failure and it was removed from service soon after. Read the NTSB and, BEA and FAA reports before you compare the 2. The Commie version couldn't even perform at an air show.

[Guevara]

11 hours ago, KaptainRob said:

Boeing may be too big to fail but it will suffer far fewer aircraft sales as a result of negligent management and loss of consumer confidence.  Airbus on the other hand, having noted how tall poppy syndrome leads to failure, should have audited their entire company and all systems to avoid a similar fate.

COMAC is an interesting story.  Almost a carbon copy of the A320, the Chinese had Airbus teach them how to build an airframe over several decades of manufacturing in Tianjin.  However, all major equipment, engines, instruments and flight systems are of Western design and supply.  Mainly US, French, and German.

I find it somewhat strange (other than the greed factor) that Western companies were so quick to set up manufacturing plants for high tech equipment in China when it was quite obvious the Chinese would ultimately copy their product.

An acquaintance from Australia moved his specialised R&D and manufacturing of high tensile alloy steel components to China approx 10 years ago on the promise of funding which had been denied by Australia.  Some of his expertise was in the testing of aircraft components like landing gear struts, axles etc for extreme temperature/heavy load use.  The deal involved training the Chinese how to eventually take control of the business upon expiry of his tenure.   

They aren't all stupid, long term goals are met thru long term planning, not short term profit.

Here's a question for you KR, why are Cuba replacing their fleet of Antonov's with Airbus?

If you've never flown on an Antonov, give it a try, you would believe it was cobbled together by McGiver.