[M II A II R II K]

China wants to rival Boeing, Airbus with its C919 'big plane'

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/travel/2009-10-12-china-planes-c919-boeing_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

http://i.usatoday.net/money/_photos/2009/10/13/chinaplanesx-large.jpg

BEIJING — For now, China's big entry into the standard passenger jet business is little more than a 20-foot-long model plane on display here at Beijing Expo air show.

But the model — of the planned C919, single-aisle jetliner designed to seat up to 190 passengers — represents something much larger.

It's what's called the "big plane" project here. It symbolizes the country's stepped-up efforts to get into the commercial passenger jet business in a big way and challenge U.S. plane-making giant Boeing and European rival Airbus, which dominate the global jetliner market. And it will be a showcase for China's ambition to be more than a low-tech producer of consumer goods for the world.

"To develop the large-scale airliner is a strategic decision of the Chinese government and one of the major programs for building up an innovation-oriented country," Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Dejiang said last month, according to the Xinhua state news agency.

The model of the C919 was unveiled in August. Work on a prototype began only last month. A maiden flight isn't scheduled until 2014, and the jet won't be available commercially until 2016. Even then, it's aimed at China's domestic market rather than for U.S. or other countries' airlines.

But the Chinese manufacturer already says the twin-engine, narrow-body design of the C919 is superior to the planes it would compete against: the Boeing 737, the best-selling jetliner in the world, and its competitor, the Airbus A320.

The plane "is more advanced compared to the current operating aircraft of the same size," Chen Jin, sales chief of the Commercial Aircraft Corp. of China, which will make the planes, told China's English-language China Daily newspaper. "It will use between 12% and 15% less fuel, and help reduce carbon emissions."

The manufacturer also says it can bring the C919 in at a price lower than the $50 million range that Boeing and Airbus charge for each of their planes.

Such boasts could indeed make the C919 a rival of Boeing and Airbus — if met. But U.S. and international aircraft industry analysts question whether they can be. Despite state backing and a strong travel market, the Chinese manufacturer faces many technical and commercial challenges.

"I don't think Boeing or Airbus will feel at all threatened by this," says Derek Sadubin, CEO of the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, an independent think tank in Sydney.

Confidence, despite hurdles

For the Commercial Aircraft Corp. of China, or COMAC, to achieve the fuel efficiency needed to make its new plane attractive to airlines seeking lower operating costs is a difficult proposition.

The plane's designer, Wu Guanghui, told China Daily that COMAC is turning to new, lightweight carbon composites in place of steel for the plane's construction to gain the 12% to 15% in fuel efficiency.

Boeing, which is the pioneer in composite design, has had difficulty in bringing its first composite plane, the 787 Dreamliner, to market. Boeing promises the Dreamliner will deliver 20% operating savings compared with conventionally built aircraft. But its test flights have been repeatedly canceled, with the latest delay coming from a structural flaw.

Likewise, Boeing and Airbus have delayed plans to build more fuel-efficient, narrow-body planes to replace the 737 and A320 because they say that composites alone won't contribute enough fuel-efficiency savings to justify the billions of dollars of design costs.

Despite no track record in making big planes or composites, the Chinese are confident they can do it.

"China is doubling its composite material output every year," says Cheng Zhong, a mechanical engineer at a state-owned company making composites for China's aerospace sector, as he admired the C919 model at the Beijing air exposition. "I believe we have the capacity to make the required composites."

To achieve the cost savings that COMAC says will bring the C919 in at a lower price, the manufacturer will have to count on success with composites. After the design investment is made, materials are the biggest cost of constructing a plane, says Richard Aboulafia, an aircraft manufacturing analyst at The Teal Group in Fairfax, Va.

Aboulafia says COMAC probably cannot buy materials much more cheaply than Boeing or Airbus. And lower Chinese labor costs won't make its plane appreciably less expensive than the two. Labor represents just 10% of construction costs, he says.

Price also isn't the sole factor for airlines in buying a plane. Aboulafia says a plane's quality, reliability, maintenance and readily available replacement parts, as well as the pilot and mechanic training that manufacturers provide, are equally important for airlines.

Aboulafia also warns that building commercial aircraft has never been a consistently profitable business. Boeing and Airbus risk several billions of dollars every time they try to develop a new type of aircraft and have suffered many cost overruns and program delays. So far, COMAC has made only smaller planes.

The only way that COMAC can deliver significantly lower prices, he says, is if the Chinese government is willing to subsidize big losses on the plane to establish the country's position in the global industry.

'Dynamic market' a plus

One big thing that the "big plane" project has going for it commercially is China's booming travel market, which would be the first competitive battleground for COMAC's ambition of being a global competitor. Boeing and Airbus already are here providing planes to Chinese airlines. Another thing going for COMAC is that global demand for the C919 class of narrow-body jets remains strong.

Boeing currently forecasts that the Chinese market will need close to 3,770 jetliners in the C919's class of planes for domestic routes in the next 20 years. At current prices, that's about $400 billion worth of airplanes. Globally, Boeing places the 20-year demand for planes such as the C919, 737 and A230 at nearly 19,500, valued at $1.4 trillion.

"China is the most dynamic market for commercial airplanes, and the second largest worldwide after North America," says Wang Yukui, director of communications for Boeing's China unit.

Domestic air traffic grew 20% in the first half of 2009 vs. the first half of 2008 despite a worldwide economic slump, according to China's Civil Aviation Administration.

Because the Chinese government is invested in the C919, analyst Sadubin says Chinese airlines would be inclined to buy them. But analyst Aboulafia says that isn't a given.

"China's airline industry has really become a private-sector industry, and it has been ignoring the government in its decisions for some time now," he says. "Just because the C919 will be made in China doesn't mean all the Chinese carriers will stop buying 737s and A320s to buy only C919s. Those airlines will do what is best for their own business plans. Besides, it will be decades, if ever, before the Chinese will be able to produce anything close to the numbers of planes that the Chinese market will demand."

Boeing's take on new rival

For now, Boeing and Airbus don't appear worried by China's "big plane" project, though they are careful not to be dismissive of it.

Boeing "recognizes and respects the ambition and desire of other countries to enter (the business) with large aircraft," Wang says. "When China wants to do things, they have the talent and desire to succeed."

Laurence Barron, Airbus China president, warns, however, that the market is fraught with unexpected difficulties and delays. Achieving its goal of being a global aviation player could take the Chinese manufacturer more than a decade, he was quoted as saying in China's International Aviation magazine.

Joe Tymczyszyn, executive director of the U.S.-China Aviation Cooperation Program, which comprises aviation companies and government organizations, says the U.S. shouldn't fear the competition.

China's foray into the larger passenger jet market could be a "win-win" for the Chinese and for U.S. aviation firms, Tymczyszyn says. U.S. firms currently supply up to 45% of the dollar content in COMAC's smaller passenger jet, and he says they'll compete to supply the new jet, too.

The Chinese aren't alone among emerging economies wanting to expand into the jetliner business. Russia and Brazil have new jets coming out, too.

National pride

At the air expo here, where the model of the C919 was a big draw, the prospect of Chinese airliners evoked a sense of excitement and even a little economic nationalism.

"The Chinese people can do this," enthused Mao Caihong, 35. "I am very excited by this plane. If China can keep on developing, we can build high-level, comfortable and safe planes."

Cheng Zhong, the mechanical engineer, was more to the financial point in his assessment.

"Airplanes cost China billions of dollars every year," he said. "Since we have the capability to make them, why let foreigners earn all the money?"

[Boiseguy]

Interesting... but considering the poor quality of goods coming out of china as of late... I'd be less apt to board one of them to get me across the pond.... Just sayin

[Busy Bee]

You may think you're making a routine flight from Shanghai to Los Angeles, but you leave with so much more—lead poisoning.

[Mobius57]

If they really wanted to change the face of the airline industry they would build Blended Wind Bodys. Im still waiting for Boeing and airbus to switch to that much more efficient and bigger design.

[rsbear]

Interesting... but considering the poor quality of goods coming out of china as of late... I'd be less apt to board one of them to get me across the pond.... Just sayin

No kidding. I do my best to avoid products from China meant to go in my body, let alone products my body is meant to go in!

[urbanfan89]

Interesting... but considering the poor quality of goods coming out of china as of late... I'd be less apt to board one of them to get me across the pond.... Just sayin

"Made in Japan" used to mean low-quality and cheap. Now, "Made in Japan" means reliable and durable.

Don't say that "Made in China" will always mean cheap, Wal Mart goods.

[llamaorama]

Exactly

The quality and greed problems are more inherent to low-cost consumer goods where profit is based on cutting corners. Not advanced industries like Aerospace where being cutting-edge is competitive. China's move to high value goods and becoming a consumer of its own products signals a higher level of development. They have much greater ambitions than manufacturing Happy Meal toys...

I'm not a huge China apologist and I like being able to vote, look at internet porn, and read about Tibet, and lets not get started on Taiwan lol...but then sometimes they do deserve credit for things.

[SnyderBock]

I doubt a start-up airline company can makeup for decades of jet engine development by 2014. They have none of the pattens or advanced jet engine designs needed to do this. They will have to develop it from scratch and do it at a pace many times greater than Boeing and Airbus, simply to even catch up to them technologically--let alone pass them up. I am a skeptic, I will definitely be looking for reports of corporate espionage and patten infringements here. Until the Chinese government starts enforcing intellectual property rights and civil rights, they will not grow into the great nation they desire to be. I have great hope they will, but I'm not seeing much improvement yet,

On the other hand, increased technological competition from China may well help stimulate increased technological innovation. This could be very good, especially if China lifts it's artificial currency controls (which are in violation of World Trade Organization Guidelines--which I guess they don't care to enforce), for more balanced market competition.

[sammyg]

Embraer in Brazil is trying the same thing, and they're not doing too badly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jets

[Buckeye Native 001]

What is it with the anti-China sentiment on this forum? We look like a bunch of fucking morons whenever that shit starts up :rolleyes:

[JMancuso]

What is it with the anti-China sentiment on this forum? We look like a bunch of fucking morons whenever that shit starts up :rolleyes:

well, in light of their automotive safety record (or the lack thereof), i think people are right to be apprehensive about chinese built aircraft.

[The Chemist]

well, in light of their automotive safety record (or the lack thereof), i think people are right to be apprehensive about chinese built aircraft.

Their cars are getting much safer of late - for example, the Roewe 550 received a 5 star rating on the Chinese NCAP test recently. Plus all the foreign cars built in Chinese joint venture factories are just as safe and reliable as their counterparts built anywhere else. People said the same things about the Korean automotive industry only 15 years ago, and look where they are now. I don't see why the Chinese industry will be any different.

I doubt a start-up airline company can makeup for decades of jet engine development by 2014. They have none of the pattens or advanced jet engine designs needed to do this. They will have to develop it from scratch and do it at a pace many times greater than Boeing and Airbus, simply to even catch up to them technologically--let alone pass them up.

Boeing and Airbus don't design or build their own engines either. Why should the Chinese airplane company have to? They can buy engines from the same sources that Airbus and Boeing do - Rolls Royce, Pratt and Whitney, CFM, or General Electric.

[M.K.]

-

[JMancuso]

Their cars are getting much safer of late - for example, the Roewe 550 received a 5 star rating on the Chinese NCAP test recently. Plus all the foreign cars built in Chinese joint venture factories are just as safe and reliable as their counterparts built anywhere else. People said the same things about the Korean automotive industry only 15 years ago, and look where they are now. I don't see why the Chinese industry will be any different.

korean brands had to earn consumers' confidence. 15 years ago, korean brands were considered cheap and unreliable where people laughed at hyundai's, now they pay $40,000 for a sonata. foreign brands made in china are fine but not very many chinese brands associated with quality. lenovo is one example of a high quality chinese product with a sound reputation.

[M.K.]

-

[isaidso]

Isn't Bombardier partnering with the Chinese to ensure that they remain an important civilian airplane manufacturer? There are lots of issues such as technology transfer to the Chinese, but they probably don't have a choice. It's inevitable that China emerge as a rival to Boeing and Airbus. Bombardier is probably wise hitching a ride with the Chinese aerospace industry.

China will gain a respected partner, and Bombardier will help ensure their place in the industry.

[The Chemist]

korean brands had to earn consumers' confidence. 15 years ago, korean brands were considered cheap and unreliable where people laughed at hyundai's, now they pay $40,000 for a sonata. foreign brands made in china are fine but not very many chinese brands associated with quality. lenovo is one example of a high quality chinese product with a sound reputation.

Living in China, I come into contact with Chinese brands every day, and many of them really are pretty decent. I have two Chinese branded LCD TVs in my house (Konka and Skyworth) and both of them are pretty good. Most of my appliances and air conditioners are Chinese brands (Haier, Midea, and Galanz being domestically well known and reputable Chinese appliance brands) and I've had no quality issues with any of them. I think the stereotype of all Chinese brands being crap is quite undeserved.

[M.K.]

-

[twoNeurons]

"Made in Japan" used to mean low-quality and cheap. Now, "Made in Japan" means reliable and durable.

Don't say that "Made in China" will always mean cheap, Wal Mart goods.

"Made in Japan" has a little different history than "Made in China"

Japan was producing very high quality goods and high technology. They became a major military power and has some high tech battleships.

What they didn't have was lots of natural resources. After they lost the war, the Allies didn't want them to resume their military power, so "encouraged" their industries to start manufacturing cheap household items. They didn't have the materials to build quality goods, they were buying American scrap metal by the megaton.

These goods were cheaply made, cheap to buy and mainly for export. People wouldn't buy "Made in Japan" goods so Japan build an entire industry out of what we would call today as "dollar store goods"

At the same time, they were producing very high quality products for their domestic market. For example, the cameras of the 50s and 60s, only a few short years after the war, were excellent.

They soon became the world leader in mass production and people realized that they also produced quality goods.

While there are some similarities, China doesn't have the same technology background. On the other hand has the resources and the cheap labor. There are many exports made in China that wouldn't be acceptable to the domestic market's middle class.

It remains to be seen if China will focus on quality but if the world thinks China's goods are crap, they look like less of a threat.

The Chinese manufacturing industry is interesting, to say the least. I'm sure they have the capability to mimic high quality goods. Their low-cost low-margin cheap goods make them tons of cash by sheer volume... this is what will finance the push to drive higher technology goods.

The amazing thing about China is that because of the way the system works over there, they can continue to have really really cheap labor AND a higher paid middle class for a long time... once an area gets too expensive, there's always another city that wants the factory.

One interesting policy some factories have is hire more workers than is needed. When there is work to be done, not everyone gets a job... essentially creating a false "supply and demand" job market.

An interesting read is "Poorly Made in China" which gives insight into manufacturing in China.

Remember, Boeing builds its newer aircraft all over the world. It essentially contracts out these parts.

There's no reason China can't do the same.

[Boiseguy]

"Made in Japan" used to mean low-quality and cheap. Now, "Made in Japan" means reliable and durable.

Don't say that "Made in China" will always mean cheap, Wal Mart goods.

hence why I said.. "as of late":cool:

[liat91]

So China's airplane market will be who? China. Even in Asia there will be an eversion to purchasing this type of product. Japan and India will never buy Chinese airplanes. Europe won't and the United States won't. Brazil will build their own first and the rest of Latin America would buy from Brazil before China. That leaves.....Africa and the Middle-east. Oil will be done by that time and we'll see if Africa will tend to China when they become the last region on earth that will be in rapid development. China just has a shining reputation in racial tolerance of the black race. We will see.....

[JMancuso]

Living in China, I come into contact with Chinese brands every day, and many of them really are pretty decent. I have two Chinese branded LCD TVs in my house (Konka and Skyworth) and both of them are pretty good. Most of my appliances and air conditioners are Chinese brands (Haier, Midea, and Galanz being domestically well known and reputable Chinese appliance brands) and I've had no quality issues with any of them. I think the stereotype of all Chinese brands being crap is quite undeserved.

well, your in china. to people outside, chinese brands are associated with poor quality becuase that's all we ever saw. it's up to chinese companies to prove themselves otherwise.

[M.K.]

-

[simcityaustin]

It's funny but not surprising that poor quality problems persist in China. Nowadays low quality goods are manufactured in more third world countries because it's to expensive in the BRIC countries.

That being said the workers are still treated unfairly, environmental concerns are almost non existent, and manufacturing is nowhere as near as good as in the US and Europe....but China can produce quality products. The tech is there, its just a matter of whether China wants to invest in it.

[SnyderBock]

It's funny but not surprising that poor quality problems persist in China. Nowadays low quality goods are manufactured in more third world countries because it's to expensive in the BRIC countries.

That being said the workers are still treated unfairly, environmental concerns are almost non existent, and manufacturing is nowhere as near as good as in the US and Europe....but China can produce quality products. The tech is there, its just a matter of whether China wants to invest in it.

Agreed...
My comments were not anti-Chinese sentiment. I was saying almost exactly what simicityaustin was saying. The potential is there, but the government is lacking as of now, to pull it off. I am anything but anti-Chinese. My hope is that China will have a civil rights movement of it's own soon and with civil liberties will come higher quality manufacturing. With civil liberties, I also hope comes political reform which ultimately lifts the currency control, resulting in a more competitive global market place which will spark more rapid innovation. This would allow a union between NASA, ESA, JPX and China on a scale resulting in a permanent moon settlement. Also the construction of a permanent spacecraft for making round trips to Mars and Back (remaining always in space). I want China to be a major part of all this, but if they want to be part of the free world, they will have to be a free nation and stop acting so much like a soviet era communist regime. China has made much progress the last two decades, but it almost seems like a front.

Also, I'd like to know how their airplanes will be 15%-20% more fuel efficient than Boeing and Airbus counterparts, if they will use the same exact jet engines. They are going to use the same new engines as Boeing Dreamliner? How would China be granted access to that technology? I don't get it... Russia shared MiG tech with China and China stole it and mass produced their own copy version of it themselves. Why would any company repeat that mistake? Especially with cutting edge jet propulsion technology.

[ChicagoChicago]

I doubt a start-up airline company can makeup for decades of jet engine development by 2014. They have none of the pattens or advanced jet engine designs needed to do this. They will have to develop it from scratch and do it at a pace many times greater than Boeing and Airbus, simply to even catch up to them technologically--let alone pass them up. I am a skeptic, I will definitely be looking for reports of corporate espionage and patten infringements here. Until the Chinese government starts enforcing intellectual property rights and civil rights, they will not grow into the great nation they desire to be. I have great hope they will, but I'm not seeing much improvement yet,

On the other hand, increased technological competition from China may well help stimulate increased technological innovation. This could be very good, especially if China lifts it's artificial currency controls (which are in violation of World Trade Organization Guidelines--which I guess they don't care to enforce), for more balanced market competition.

China has a history of ignoring patent rights. I fully expect them to steal a design from Airbus or Boeing and run with it.

[electricron]

China has a history of ignoring patent rights. I fully expect them to steal a design from Airbus or Boeing and run with it.

It's called reverse engineering. China is very good at reverse engineering...

[M.K.]

-

[twoNeurons]

It's called reverse engineering. China is very good at reverse engineering...

Or technology transfer.

Mind you, technology transfer is nothing new.

Britain invented the railroad, and transferred that technology around the world.

The dreamliner (787) is even now undergoing small design changes. They have had lots of delays because the maiden voyage absolutely, positively, resolutely MUST be 100% flawless.

China will do the same if they build a plane. I wouldn't be surprised if they employed weather-control technologies that they have been investing in since the 50s ( with limited success ) to clear the skies of clouds before its maiden voyage.

[plinko]

So China's airplane market will be who? China. Even in Asia there will be an eversion to purchasing this type of product. Japan and India will never buy Chinese airplanes. Europe won't and the United States won't. Brazil will build their own first and the rest of Latin America would buy from Brazil before China. That leaves.....Africa and the Middle-east. Oil will be done by that time and we'll see if Africa will tend to China when they become the last region on earth that will be in rapid development. China just has a shining reputation in racial tolerance of the black race. We will see.....

...and? I think you vastly underestimate the market for aircraft within China alone. Flying domestically in China isn't all that much different than flying Southwest in the US. Lots of destinations, short hops, nice planes, decent service, and gorgeous airports. Add in the short haul international flights to SE Asia, Japan, Korea, and Russia and that's a sizeable market.

Personally I think a little competition for Boeing and Airbus is exactly what the aircraft industry needs.

[Policy Wonk]

...and? I think you vastly underestimate the market for aircraft within China alone. Flying domestically in China isn't all that much different than flying Southwest in the US. Lots of destinations, short hops, nice planes, decent service, and gorgeous airports.

and gorgeous stewardesses...

Seeing as Boeing is stumbling down the street with their pants around their ankles mumbling nonsense these days the barriers to entry will never be lower if you want to raid their market with minimal resistance.

[urbanfan89]

China has a history of ignoring patent rights. I fully expect them to steal a design from Airbus or Boeing and run with it.

Don't be too sanctimonious. Samuel Slater is called the "Father of the American Industrial Revolution" because he used his memory to introduce textile mills to the US despite the British ban on exporting technology. Virtually every other country needed some counterfeiting to start their industrial process.

[SnyderBock]

The British started America's industrial revolution by developing the colonies -- which would become the states. The base infrastructure was built up in America by the British, prior to the American Revolution. Innovations from such American scientists as Benjamin Franklin contributed as much as anyone. Slaves also contributed as much as anyone in the south with supplying the industrial north with cheap raw materials. This was a time of history where slave trade was still legal in most countries. A time in history not even remotely comparative to today's global economy and society. So no, it's not acceptable for China to grow, the same way and make the same mistakes. That's not acceptable at all. They can learn from our mistakes and not repeat them; all they have to do is pick up the history books.

That's what I am hoping for; an intellectually driven cultural revolution in China, perhaps originating from it's growing university society. That will ultimately be what will lead to innovation from within (instead of importing technology from outside). That's how China can become the great nation it inspires to be. Civil liberties will allow the free flow of information and ideas within China and spark innovation. Ideas should not be screened and approved by the government, it's not of their concern. If the Chinese government desires International respect, they must first show respect for their own citizens and grant them civil liberties and enforce them.

Then we can see China become a global leader of peace and unity. What a great world it will be!

[urbanfan89]

The British started America's industrial revolution by developing the colonies -- which would become the states. The base infrastructure was built up in America by the British, prior to the American Revolution. Innovations from such American scientists as Benjamin Franklin contributed as much as anyone. Slaves also contributed as much as anyone in the south with supplying the industrial north with cheap raw materials. This was a time of history where slave trade was still legal in most countries. A time in history not even remotely comparative to today's global economy and society.
One of the major complaints of the American Revolutionaries was that the British policy of mercantalism promoted industry in the homeland while discouraging it in the colonies. The colonies could not industrialize as British colonies, and had to break away...and when it did, the basis of the first industry was bootlegged from the British. I'm 100% certain that when Africa starts industrializing, they will begin with knockoff Chinese brands and technologies (most of the lowest quality Made-in-China goods are scavenged by Africans now anyway).

So no, it's not acceptable for China to grow, the same way and make the same mistakes. That's not acceptable at all. They can learn from our mistakes and not repeat them; all they have to do is pick up the history books.
China is learning from some mistakes from the west: just look at its massive emphasis on green technology and infrastructure. But modernization is a process and is not something which can be bequeathed or bought (just look at the Arab oil states which thought they could simply buy development with petrodollars). Hence there will always be an ugly period. I hope that China is passing this ugly period.

That's what I am hoping for; an intellectually driven cultural revolution in China, perhaps originating from it's growing university society. That will ultimately be what will lead to innovation from within (instead of importing technology from outside). That's how China can become the great nation it inspires to be.
Cultural revolution. University student movements. Groundhog day?

I hope for the above, but more likely is something started by disgruntled farmers and workers who have had too much of Party hypocrisy. Looking back 2000 years, the precedent isn't very good. But the precedent indicates that, after the old dynasty is violently overthrown, the new dynasty has a long honeymoon with its citizens while society flourishes. Maybe a new precedent will be set.

Civil liberties will allow the free flow of information and ideas within China and spark innovation. Ideas should not be screened and approved by the government, it's not of their concern. If the Chinese government desires International respect, they must first show respect for their own citizens and grant them civil liberties and enforce them.
Most western ideas are already well known, especially given that they are firmly entrenched in fellow Chinese societies Hong Kong and Taiwan. But nationalism is a very, very, very powerful card and allowing democratic elections tomorrow could create more problems than they solve. Like electing a government filled with xenophobic demagogues, which is what Germany did in the 1930s. At least the current Party bureaucrats are rational and predictable. I'm no apologist for the CPC, but democracy is not the panacea as westerners tout it. Even when China is a mature democracy, it will still be at odds with other great powers and we will still see demagogic US Congressmen ranting about how China is coming for your wife and kids so we'd better slap tariffs on their products.

Then we can see China become a global leader of peace and unity. What a great world it will be!
I hope so, but we can't wear rose-tinted glasses either.

[emathias]

I think it's great for China if they're able to pull this off.

Like others have pointed out, they don't need to design engines at this point - someone will sell them engines. As far as "technology transfer" goes, that's just part of free trade. It's better when it's done completely within normalized patent rules, but Russia stole plenty of tech from the U.S. and it didn't help them that much, and the U.S. "inherited" (aka stole) a lot of German technology after WWII and managed to use it to great advantage in ways that benefited the entire world. Here's to hoping whatever tech China does steal, they manage to use more like the U.S. used German tech and less like the USSR used US tech.

China's air travel market will likely become as large as the U.S. market within a few decades (maybe sooner). Currently the U.S. market accounts for nearly half of all commercial air travel in the world. So even if China's new airplane company only sold domestically, it would be a plenty big marketplace for them. I also think the poster who said Latin America would buy from Brazil first is quite mistaken. China has very carefully been cultivating relationships throughout Latin America and even friends of Brazil won't likely look at their planes exclusively. Friends of America don't buy exclusively Boeing - why would you think Latin American countries aren't sophisticated enough to make similar decisions?

The Middle East is also a growing market for air travel and shouldn't be marginalized as an area for growth.

China just has a shining reputation in racial tolerance of the black race. We will see.....

Yes, because everyone but China is so respectful of Africa ... :koko:

China is doing whatever it can to maintain footholds in Africa. It's true that Chinese culture may not particularly respect African culture, but they're not blindly racist - it's more that they respect China's long and often successful traditions as superior to the instability in contemporary Africa. Maybe their view in that regard isn't politically correct, but it is not a view based on hate or animosity and no more paternalistic than how most of the West treats Africa. If anything, China treats Africa more fairly than the West does. China deals with the current leaders and doesn't believe it's their place to tell other countries how to govern themselves. That view and method has it's downsides to be sure, but it's not disrespectful or based on a sense of superiority.

If I were an African farmer and China would buy my products no matter what idiot had taken over my country, and America would rather embargo me and then watch me starve or go on their welfare in a refugee camp, I'd respect China more than I would the U.S. But perhaps I'm in the minority with that opinion.

As for democracy in China, contrary to popular belief it's not completely undemocratic now. The biggest problem from a Western standpoint is that there is only one real party (technically, there is the Communist Party and eight "democratic" parties, but in practice they don't function with enough independence to matter). Local levels of government have direct elections - the equivalent of Mayors are elected democratically. They're not always competitive races, but then again there are hundreds of races in the U.S. alone each year that have unopposed candidates, so that's not really something to call foul on. Above the local level, things function rather a lot like how the U.S. Electoral College functions, or how Senators were elected before the 17th Amendment (before the 17th Amendment, state legislatures elected their senators - there was no direct popular election for them).

With a population as enormous as China, direct elections aren't necessarily the best or only way to have a well-functioning democracy, and methods they currently use have been considered democratic or republican in the West for centuries. The key problem is that they don't have strong opposition parties. Even there, there are factions within the Communist Party that disagree and align and power-trade similarly to how political parties do, it's just more tenuous because if one faction goes to far it can completely lose power with no real hope of mounting a comeback. In Switzerland if a group loses power, they can try to make a comeback - in China, it's quite rare for that to happen. That is the key difference, currently, between China's democracy and a healthy democracy. Once you understand that, you have a much better idea of why Tiannamen hasn't been repeated - it's not that the students are too scared, it's that in a lot of ways things are actually evolving and getting better without making a huge fuss about it.

If you're on a river and it's flowing in the general direction you want to go, even if it has a few more twists and turns than you'd prefer you don't have much motivation to try and get out and carve a new path as long as you believe you'll eventually reach your destination.

[SnyderBock]

Civil liberties will allow the free flow of information and ideas within China and spark innovation. Ideas should not be screened and approved by the government, it's not of their concern. If the Chinese government desires International respect, they must first show respect for their own citizens and grant them civil liberties and enforce them.
Most western ideas are already well known, especially given that they are firmly entrenched in fellow Chinese societies Hong Kong and Taiwan. But nationalism is a very, very, very powerful card and allowing democratic elections tomorrow could create more problems than they solve. Like electing a government filled with xenophobic demagogues, which is what Germany did in the 1930s. At least the current Party bureaucrats are rational and predictable. I'm no apologist for the CPC, but democracy is not the panacea as westerners tout it. Even when China is a mature democracy, it will still be at odds with other great powers and we will still see demagogic US Congressmen ranting about how China is coming for your wife and kids so we'd better slap tariffs on their products.

You made some great points and I was incorrect about a couple points I was making. Thank you for sharing your opinions. I really feel you misunderstood this one point shown above^...

By this comment, I was not talking about democracy. I don't see why the free flow and exchange of ideas (without excessive government approval/censorship) would require a government change to multi-party (or party independent) democracy. If the current government as is, simply adopts into law a "bill of right" which includes all of the globally accepted "inalienable" rights (as what is stated in the United Nations Bill of Human Rights), then I see no reason that cultural freedom and revolution--sparking innovation--can not be achieved without a significant government reform.

I'm not willing to tell a people, a nation how to govern themselves. But I don't see anything wrong with the global community putting pressure on China to grant it's citizens, liberties and freedom which mankind has deemed to be natural born rights for all people. I see no reason why a communist based government can't be successful, so long as it grants it's citizens all "inalienable" rights and has proper precautions in place to prevent the coruption which has plagued communist nations of the past. I really think China is close to finding this balance, but they must not stop short. i suspect it will take anon-violent "civil rights movement" supported by high court rulings in favor of the movement. I'm not sure how likely that will be. it will take some bold and courageous civil leaders and judges.

That being said, I am still curious how China will produce these aircraft to be ~15-20% more fuel efficient.

[Bootstrap Bill]

korean brands had to earn consumers' confidence. 15 years ago, korean brands were considered cheap and unreliable where people laughed at hyundai's, now they pay $40,000 for a sonata. foreign brands made in china are fine but not very many chinese brands associated with quality. lenovo is one example of a high quality chinese product with a sound reputation.

Lenovo=IBM. They haven't had time to screw it up yet.

[llamaorama]

My laptop is a Lenovo

Don't know what the old thinkpad fans out there think, but the one I bought(an IdeaPad) is an alright product, mine has basically the same hardware as the new Macbooks but only cost 600 bucks with a student discount. Ended up being a better value for the money than a Dell.

I've heard a lot of complaints about their US-based customer service and shipping division though. Personally I had some trouble getting the backpack carrying case I ordered, it took several weeks longer than the computer did to ship.

[SnyderBock]

I've never heard of Lenovo; not even sure how to pronounce it properly. Le-No-Vo? This is some new Chinese brand of computers? What kind of micro-processors are they using?

[The Chemist]

I've never heard of Lenovo; not even sure how to pronounce it properly. Le-No-Vo? This is some new Chinese brand of computers? What kind of micro-processors are they using?

They are a Chinese brand that bought IBM's PC business, so they still sell Thinkpads and the other types of PCs that IBM used to sell. They use Intel chips, just like everybody else.

As for the pronunciation, no idea, but it's not an Anglicization of Lenovo's Chinese name (lian xiang).

[SHiRO]

"Lenovo" is a portmanteau of "Le-" (from Legend) and "novo", pseudo-Latin for "new". The Chinese name (simplified Chinese: 联想; traditional Chinese: 聯想; pinyin: liánxiǎng) means "association" or "connected thinking" but can also imply creativity. The name was changed from Legend because it conflicted with other trademarks registered in the West.[13]

Wiki is your friend...;)