Workers stand next to a model of a CR929 developed by China-Russia Commercial Aircraft International Corporation (CRAIC), a joint venture between Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China and Russia's United Aircraft Corp ahead of the China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition, in Zhuhai, China in 2018.CHINA STRINGER NETWORK/Reuters
Gus Carlson is a U.S.-based columnist for The Globe and Mail.
In most industries, disruption is a good thing. It brings fresh ideas that create innovative products and new approaches that improve efficiency, which typically translates into more value for consumers.
For some time now, the aircraft-manufacturing business has been desperate for the disruption of the duopoly held by Boeing and Airbus. Recent revelations about Boeing’s misconduct has exposed the real dangers of a non-competitive marketplace where costs, not quality, drive decision-making, sometimes at the expense of human life.
The cracks appearing in the cozy Boeing-Airbus world have generated new speculation that Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, known as Comac, is in an increasingly strong position to be a disruptor. The company is aggressively marketing its 200-seat C919 narrow-body airliner, which went into service a year ago.
Airbus revealed this week that it is feeling the heat, saying competition from its low-cost rival had prompted a hiring freeze at the European company, part of a wider austerity program that will include job cuts to improve productivity. As a result, Airbus said it would cut back order fulfillment in 2024, delivering 770 planes instead of the planned 800.
At Boeing, its legal, governance and manufacturing issues are causing delays, with deliveries of planes to major airlines pushed out as far as two years, leaving carriers few options to replenish aging fleets.
Considering these dynamics, the rise of Comac as a viable player in the global industry should be a good thing. But is it?
The Comac alternative is a case of buyer beware. So many of Comac’s strong points are also red flags.
Yes, the company has the financial heft to break into an industry that has enormously high barriers to entry. But its financial strength comes from the Communist Chinese government, it’s main patron. Trust in Beijing is already low in many parts of the world. In 2021, the U.S. prohibited American investing in Comac because of its ownership structure.
The questions raised by Comac’s DNA are real. How closely is the government monitoring quality control? In the event of a quality-related air disaster involving a Comac plane, can the Chinese government be relied upon to apply proper accountability standards that improve manufacturing practices? If not, what recourse do the airlines and their customers have?
And, yes, because of cheap labour in China and questionable regulation on the quality of materials used in the manufacturing process, Comac has been able to build commercial aircraft at a fraction of the cost of its European and American rivals.
Further, there are few signs that Comac aircraft are particularly innovative. The C919s are basically cheaper copies of the Boeing 737 Max and Airbus A320neo jetliners using conventional build methods.
Of course, Comac airliners need to meet global airworthiness standards before they are cleared for use. That’s a good thing. But with aging fleets at many of the big global carriers, the pressure to replenish those fleets may lead to cutting corners or greasing wheels to hurry aircraft into service.
As we have seen with Boeing, even minor failures in the manufacturing process and regulatory oversight can become big problems. This is potentially a bigger concern with Comac, whose government ownership in a totalitarian country could translate into a lack of oversight.
Clearly, the cracks in the Boeing-Airbus duopoly now appear wide enough for Comac’s C919 to get a foothold after 15 years in development. If the cracks get any wider, Comac’s goal of becoming a dominant global player will arrive sooner than anticipated. For the flying public, that should prompt some questions.
The bottom line: Disruption should be a good thing. It should make an industry stronger, better and more reliable. In some industries, the bar for quality is low enough that lapses don’t have serious consequences.
In the commercial aviation world, the opposite is true. The bar is high and any disruptor needs to exceed the current standards for quality, especially since those standards have been compromised by cost-driven decision-making.
There’s no question Comac can create cheaper products. But that’s not the kind of disruption the aircraft industry needs right now, especially with consumer confidence so low.
Until we can get on an aircraft and look at the Made in China sticker with confidence, we need to adopt a caveat emptor stance. Cheaper isn’t better, especially when our lives hang in the balance.